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 does usefully disclose the filter semantics — that 'open' specifically means status IN open or partially_filled — but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, result limits, or ordering. Partial disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do much more. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, return shape, and any explanation of the optional filtering parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent calling a list endpoint.

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 0% with three parameters (user_id required, market_id, subaccount_id), and the description clarifies only that the results are 'for the user'. It does not explain whether market_id or subaccount_id narrow the result set or how they interact, leaving two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 ('List currently-open orders') and defines the scope via the status filter (open, partially_filled). It implicitly contrasts with the pax.orders_history sibling, but never names or distinguishes itself from it explicitly, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'currently-open orders' — an agent can infer this is the tool for live/open orders versus pax.orders_history. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the history alternative, and no conditions or exclusions.

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