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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: 'drafts instructions only; user Review & Submit' and 'Advisory only' disclose the critical behavioral trait that this tool does not place trades or execute actions — it only produces a plan for human review. This is essential context that prevents an agent from assuming live order placement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose before the workflow caveats. The only questionable element is the embedded API URL, which adds marginal value to an agent's decision-making and could be trimmed, but overall the text is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 workflow context (advisory-only, draft instructions, pairing with IBKR API) is well covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no description. However, with 0% parameter coverage and an output schema present, the description should at least hint at what alert_json should contain and what use_latest controls. For a 2-parameter advisory tool this is moderately complete but leaves the input semantics to inference.

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 for the two undocumented parameters (alert_json, use_latest). It does not. The phrase 'from alert' hints that alert_json is the input alert, but no format, structure, or meaning is given for either parameter, and use_latest is entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 and resource ('Build Interactive Brokers execution plan from alert'). The broker-specific naming clearly differentiates it from sibling plan tools (plan_alpaca_entry, plan_robinhood_entry, plan_webull_entry, plan_tastytrade_entry, plan_entry) without needing to open their schemas. An agent can immediately tell which broker workflow this serves.

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 clear workflow context: it pairs with the IBKR public API, drafts instructions only, and requires user Review & Submit in IBKR AI Instructions. 'Advisory only' sets proper expectations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the broker-specific naming and 'advisory only' framing provide adequate routing guidance.

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