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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the run does not remember previous orders, unreadable accounts are listed in 'unreadable' and the result is flagged INCOMPLETE, and a missing result must never be treated as 'no open orders'. It also discloses the Bearer JWT requirement. These go well beyond the annotation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, critical ordering warning, status parameter, incomplete-result caveat, read-only boundary, and auth requirement are all included without padding. The most important operational warning is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly: scope, status filtering, auth, read-only nature, and how to interpret incomplete results. The unreadable-account handling is especially important because it prevents a dangerous false negative. No critical operational detail 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%, so the schema already documents both 'status' and 'address'. The description restates the 'active'/'history' values but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as listing open or historical Jupiter trigger orders from Signet session accounts, naming specific order types (limit orders, stop-losses, take-profits). It also states it is read-only and cannot place or cancel, which distinguishes it from order-placing siblings like signet_submit and signet_action.

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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'CALL THIS BEFORE PLACING ANOTHER ORDER', and explains the consequence of not doing so (duplicate orders). It also clarifies when 'history' should be used and notes the read-only boundary, so an agent knows not to use this tool for placement or cancellation.

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