PIT-bound exact-rung paper exit context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that there is no live mode or clearance, plus an inventory of returned data, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's scope before the payload inventory. It is a fragment rather than prose, but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With six required parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description needs to carry more weight than it does. Listing return contents is helpful, but the absence of any parameter or invocation guidance for a strictly-typed request object leaves the definition incomplete.

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 only 33% (two of six parameters documented), so the description should compensate. It obliquely maps 'request hash' to request_hash and 'exact-rung' to requested_size_usd, but mode, instrument, side, and venue are entirely unaddressed, leaving half the contract unexplained.

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 a specific scope (BTC/USD observe/paper, exact-rung, PIT-bound) and enumerates the returned context, so an agent can tell it is a read-only context-fetch tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like exit_cost, crypto_exit_check, or unwind_watch, which also sound exit-related.

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 clause 'No live mode or clearance' is a useful negative constraint that rules out live execution, implying usage is limited to observe/paper scenarios. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no positive 'use this when...' guidance, so usage is only implied.

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