Get order book

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: expired/canceled/filled orders are hidden by default, offers are sorted descending, and the response surfaces premint status and whether the property is collateral for an active loan with implications for a sale. Only the vague 'with what that means for a sale' clause keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long field enumeration is dense but informative for a tool with no output schema. It reads as one run-on inventory rather than cleanly separated sentences, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: field-by-field contents, dual-currency pricing, seller/buyer role, ISO and relative expiry, buyer restrictions, disclosure documents, premint and loan-collateral flags. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing.

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%, including an explicit enum description for status, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description's mention that excluded orders reappear under status 'all' restates the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get the marketplace order book for one property') and then enumerates exactly what it returns: lowest active listing, all listings, and offers sorted high-to-low with prices, counterparties and expiry. An agent can distinguish it from get_property, get_lending_market and search_properties without opening any schema.

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: the tool is for inspecting listings and offers on a given property, and 'links to the property page, where offers are made' hints at the follow-up workflow. It never names an alternative sibling or states prerequisites/exclusions relative to get_property or search_properties, so the agent must infer when this is the right call.

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