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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return values but lacks behavioral context like performance implications or error conditions, which are important for such operations.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., 'binance', 'BTC/USDT', '1.0%'), clarifying semantics that the schema alone does not provide.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('calculate') and resources ('order book depth and imbalance'), specifying it's for a trading pair on an exchange. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'compare_orderbook' by focusing on calculation rather than comparison.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'compare_orderbook' or other alternatives. It mentions the parameters but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (comparison across exchanges, Markdown table output) and default values, but lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with unsupported exchanges. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, the parameter explanations provide necessary context, and the return statement clarifies output format. No wasted words.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well by explaining all parameters and the return format. However, as a comparison tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning performance considerations or data freshness, though the current information is largely complete for basic usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 3 parameters: explains 'symbol' as trading pair with an example, clarifies 'depth_percentage' as percentage range from mid-price with default, and describes 'exchanges' as list of IDs with default. However, it doesn't specify format for exchange IDs or valid ranges for depth_percentage.

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 states the specific action ('compare order book depth and imbalance'), the resource ('for a trading pair across multiple exchanges'), and the output format ('returning a Markdown table'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'calculate_orderbook' by focusing on comparison across exchanges rather than calculation.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (comparing order books across exchanges) and mentions a default behavior ('default: all supported exchanges'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives to the sibling tool 'calculate_orderbook'.

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