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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most safety-critical trait: 'Advisory only — user confirms every place' tells the agent this tool never autonomously places orders. It also signals environment-dependent behavior via TASTYTRADE_ENV=sandbox and maps the downstream dry_run → confirmation_token → place_order flow. It stops short of detailing side effects such as network calls or failure behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, pipeline position, environment guidance, and safety behavior. No filler, and the most important information (what the tool builds) is front-loaded.

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 covers return values, and default parameter values reduce invocation risk, but the parameter semantics gap is real: with 0% schema coverage, an agent cannot know what alert_json should contain or what use_latest=true toggles. The workflow and safety guidance are strong enough that missing parameter documentation is the only notable omission.

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%, and the description barely compensates: 'from alert' hints that alert_json carries the alert payload, but the expected format is never specified. use_latest is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 verb+resource pair: 'Build tastytrade execution plan from alert.' The 'tastytrade' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from the sibling broker planners (plan_ibkr_entry, plan_alpaca_entry, plan_robinhood_entry, plan_webull_entry), though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 strong workflow context: 'Pair with self-hosted tastytrade-mcp (dry_run → confirmation_token → place_order)' positions this tool as the entry step of an execution pipeline, and 'Start with TASTYTRADE_ENV=sandbox' prescribes the safe starting environment. It does not, however, state when to choose this over the generic plan_entry or other broker-specific planners.

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