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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required and implies a read-only fetch from the venue, but it does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or the exact nature of the data returned (e.g., pagination, sorting). It gives some insight but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences and 18 words. It front-loads the primary action and includes a valuable usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by mentioning the state-recovery use case. However, it does not specify return format, ordering, or pagination, which could be expected for a list operation. It's adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that orders are tied to the credential, but it does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. No new meaning is contributed.

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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves resting orders for a credential, and adds the use-case 'recover state after a disconnect,' which differentiates it from simply 'listing' in a generic sense. It's not perfectly explicit (e.g., doesn't say 'fetches and returns'), but the meaning is clear given the tool name and sibling context.

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 phrase 'recover state after a disconnect' provides a specific scenario for when to use this tool, which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, nor does it compare with siblings like 'check_pm_order' or 'sync_pm_fills'.

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