book_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only public mirror') plus the shape of the returned record, which is genuinely useful. It omits error behavior for an out-of-range/unknown day, authentication expectations, and rate limits, so disclosure is only partial.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the payload, then the use case. The field enumeration is listy but each item is informative; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (roots, clearing summary, block/txid/verify status) does real work and largely compensates. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior for invalid day values and any freshness/latency notion.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented ('book day number (1 = first day)'). The description only restates 'for a day: day number', adding no format, range, or default behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the public settlement book for a day') and enumerates the payload (merkle roots, clearing summary, on-chain anchor), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings verify_settlement and anchor_receipt, whose domains (verification, anchors) are echoed in the description without any routing hint.

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?

'Use this to audit the venue's market history' gives a clear use context, which is more than implied usage. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when to prefer verify_settlement or anchor_receipt for verification work.

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