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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by enumerating the accepted instType values and the return fields, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that fronts the core purpose ('list instruments by type') and immediately provides the key allowed values. It is concise with 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?

The description covers the main purpose, enumerates the type filter, and lists the return fields. Since an output schema exists, return value details are covered. The main gap is the lack of explanation for optional filter parameters, but the tool's overall context is sufficiently clear.

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 explain parameters. It does explain instType by listing its allowed values, but it says nothing about uly, instId, or instFamily, which are also parameters. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a notable gap.

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 lists instruments from OKX by type, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('instruments'). It enumerates valid instType values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tickers or candles that serve different data needs.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need instrument IDs, tick sizes, lot sizes, or trading rules) and gives clear context by listing instrument types. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of full guidance.

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