Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: settlement happens directly between the two wallets and the desk only tracks state, i.e. it is non-custodial. However, it never states whether invoking the tool mutates anything, what permissions or wallet setup are needed, or what happens to existing state — gaps that matter for a desk tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core framing (OTC desk for large size) is front-loaded before the settlement detail. Nothing is wasted, though the second clause mixes behavior and mechanics in a way that could be split for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain and the custody model but leaves the read-vs-write semantics and the orderId parameter unexplained. An agent knows roughly what the tool is about but not precisely how to call it or what it returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one optional parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never references orderId at all. An agent cannot tell whether supplying orderId fetches a single order versus the full book, or whether omitting it returns aggregate stats — meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (a peer-to-peer OTC desk) and one action ("read the live order book and stats"), but it never clarifies whether the tool is a read-only lookup or the entry point for quoting/executing an OTC fill. The lone parameter orderId hints at a per-order lookup that the description never mentions, leaving the tool's actual operation partly ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied through the qualifying phrase "for size that would move a pool," which does tell an agent this is for large block-sized trades rather than ordinary swaps. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many trading siblings (trade_rail_quote, swap_build, arc_trades), so routing still requires inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.