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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds behavior beyond that: orders are returned newest first, pagination uses a cursor, and the 'unknown' state has a special operational meaning that prevents resending. Missing rate-limit or auth details, but strong added context for a read-only list tool.

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?

One dense sentence plus two short follow-ups. The resource and ordering are front-loaded, then the critical 'unknown' caution, pagination note, and a concrete example. Every part earns its place without padding.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: ordering, pagination, account scope, and the important unknown-state warning. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that account_id is optional (one account or all) and by explaining the special 'unknown' state and showing an example filter, which helps an agent use the state parameter correctly.

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 the resource (orders placed through fxapis) and adds scope and ordering (newest first, for one account or all). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_order or list_multi_account_orders, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear operational guidance: state 'unknown' means still being confirmed, so those orders must not be resent, and it notes that results page with a cursor. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_order or list_multi_account_orders, so it is not a full 5.

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