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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that bids and asks are aggregated, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it returns a current snapshot, or whether depth or refresh limits apply.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded, unambiguous, and contains no filler. It communicates aggregation, both sides of the book, and per-market scope very efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the rich pair schema supplies most invocation requirements, including naming and error-suggestion behavior. With no output schema, however, the terse description leaves response structure, aggregation levels or depth limits, and snapshot semantics unspecified.

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 single pair parameter has 100% schema coverage, including perpetual naming conventions, accepted friendly forms, suggestions for unknown markets, and canonical discovery through everstrike_pairs. The description adds only the one-market scope and no parameter meaning beyond that comprehensive 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 clearly identifies the resource as aggregated bid/ask depth and limits its scope to one market. This conveys the order-book purpose, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and direct differentiation from siblings such as everstrike_ticker or everstrike_trades.

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?

The wording implies use when an agent needs order-book depth for a single market, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or sibling comparison. The schema's pointer to everstrike_pairs helps select a market, not choose between market-data tools.

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