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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does: the tool is advisory only, requires an external server and API keys, and does not finalize an order without user confirmation. This addresses the most important concern for a trading tool, even though it does not detail error cases or side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential execution and safety context. Every sentence adds value; there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description covers prerequisites, advisory behavior, and user confirmation, but leaves the semantics of alert_json and use_latest ambiguous enough that an agent could invoke the tool incorrectly, despite both parameters having defaults.

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 needed to explain the two parameters. 'from alert' loosely suggests alert_json, but use_latest is entirely unexplained, and the relationship between the two parameters is not described. The description fails to compensate for the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource ('Alpaca execution plan from alert'). The broker and tool family are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling plan_ibkr_entry, plan_robinhood_entry, etc. simply by naming Alpaca.

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 gives useful context: pair with uvx alpaca-mcp-server, requires ALPACA_API_KEY/SECRET, user confirms place_option_order, and the tool is advisory only. It does not explicitly state 'use only for Alpaca accounts' or contrast with non-Alpaca plan tools, but the naming and context make that reasonably clear.

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