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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what 'resting' means operationally (live, holding money, able to fill) and that cancel_reason explains why an order ended, neither of which appears in the schema or annotations.

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?

It is a single dense sentence (plus a short follow-up) with no filler, and the default-status semantics are front-loaded. The phrasing is a little compressed and reads awkwardly in places, but every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It covers the key gotcha (resting = funds committed) and the cancel_reason field; only the limit/pagination behaviour is left implicit.

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 75%, so most params are documented, but the description still adds meaning: it clarifies the default status=resting and defines what that state implies, which the schema only notes tersely as 'Default resting.' It does not describe the limit param or the pagination behaviour, so it is not a full 5.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Your limit orders') and scopes it to an instrument, which is enough to separate it from sibling order tools like cancel_order or place_trade. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives a concrete usage trigger: 'check it before placing on the same market,' which tells an agent when this lookup is worth doing ahead of place_trade. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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