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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states 'Advisory only — does not place orders,' distinguishes the OAuth cloud flow from the local App Key flow, and mentions 'preview_option_order then place.' It omits details like rate limits or auth failure behavior, but the core mutation boundaries are clear.

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 purposeful: four short lines, with the primary purpose front-loaded and each subsequent line adding meaningful detail. The local-mode line is technical but necessary for correct invocation.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, advisory-only status, and mode details, while the output schema exists to explain returns. However, it lacks semantics for alert_json and use_latest, which are both central to a planning tool, and it does not clarify what data the alert must contain. This makes the definition only moderately complete for first-time invocation.

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. It richly explains 'mode' with defaults, endpoints, and auth flows, but 'alert_json' and 'use_latest' receive no direct explanation or format guidance. One of three parameters is well covered; the other two are left to inference, leaving a notable gap for schema-description-poor tooling.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Build Webull execution plan from alert.' It also clarifies the advisory nature upfront ('does not place orders') and ties it to a sibling by noting 'same structure/risk as Robinhood,' so an agent can distinguish it from other plan_* tools.

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 explicit mode-selection guidance: cloud vs local, with OAuth/App Key and the confirming-app flow. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over plan_robinhood_entry or plan_ibkr_entry, but the Webull-specific context and sibling naming make the intent clear.

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