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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds pagination behavior and the per-account result shape, which is useful, but nothing about ordering guarantees, rate limits, or retention window for 'recent'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and free of filler. The trailing 'Example: {}' is cryptic and arguably adds nothing, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all params are schema-documented. The description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: what a row means (per-account result) and that the listing is paginated and time-bounded.

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, cursor and response_format are already documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description only restates that paging uses limit and cursor and ignores response_format entirely, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (recent multi-account orders, one trade across many accounts) and what each item contains (per-account result), which meaningfully separates it from the sibling list_orders. It never explicitly names list_orders or get_multi_account_order as the alternative, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 word 'Recent' implies the retrieval intent and pagination is described, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use (e.g., use get_multi_account_order for a single order id, list_orders for single-account orders). Usage must be inferred from the scope phrasing.

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