List what a venue says is open

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), but the description adds materially: the required `trade:read` scope, a 60 rpm rate limit shared across the whole `venue-private` group, the fact that each call also spends allowance at the venue with the caller's own key, and an explicit 'do not poll' instruction. This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the sibling contrast before auth and rate-limit details, and every sentence carries operational value. It runs a little long with the trailing stream-recommendation sentence, but that sentence is genuinely actionable rather than 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: identity of the data source, the sibling relationship, required scope, rate-limit budget, and the preferred non-polling alternative. The return shape is implied by the resource and title.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `venue` (enum with its own description about the market half of the name) and `symbol` are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Name a venue when you only need one' adds marginal framing but no syntax or format detail 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+resource with scope: 'One venue's own view of the account's resting orders.' It explicitly names the sibling it differs from (list_open_orders) and explains the distinction, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (comparing against list_open_orders to surface disagreements), when to narrow ('Name a venue when you only need one'), and a when-not-to-use alternative ('For anything you would otherwise poll for, follow the order stream'). Nothing is left to inference.

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