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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement (api_key from register_agent), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the auth prerequisite and then the action. The parenthetical '(register_agent, no key needed)' is slightly muddled but earns its place by naming where to get the key.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is adequate to invoke correctly, but omits anything about what the returned history looks like or how limit/status shape it.

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 100%, so limit, status, and api_key are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the api_key requirement and adds no semantics (e.g., status values or default limit behavior) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your order history'), clearly scoped to the caller's own orders. It is not explicitly differentiated from adjacent siblings like get_positions or get_fund_history, but the resource name is unambiguous.

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 supplies one prerequisite — you need an api_key obtained via register_agent (which itself needs no key). It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling history/position tools or any exclusions.

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