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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and it does so by clearly stating 'Advisory only — does not place orders,' which is the most important behavioral trait for an execution-planning tool. It also hints at the output behavior by listing the plan components. It does not mention authentication or external calls, but for a read-only planner this is a reasonable disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, with the main action and plan contents front-loaded and the advisory/safety caveat in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition.

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 output schema and the listed plan components cover what the tool returns, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, the tool's parameter semantics—especially use_latest versus alert_json—are left unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation despite the clear purpose.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain alert_json and use_latest, but it only says 'from alert' and never clarifies the interaction between the two parameters. The boolean use_latest with default true is particularly ambiguous: does it override alert_json, and when should an agent pass alert_json explicitly? The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Build Robinhood execution plan from alert,' which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling plan_* tools by broker. It also enumerates the plan contents (delta band, spread gate, budget, bracket, MCP steps) and states the advisory nature.

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 explicitly frames the tool as advisory-only and instructs pairing with robinhood-trading MCP for actual execution, which tells the agent when this planning stage is appropriate and that order placement is out of scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like plan_alpaca_entry, but the broker-specific naming makes the routing clear.

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