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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two useful traits: the required Idempotency-Key transport header and server-side tier caps. However, it omits what happens on failure, whether the order rests or fills immediately, whether it is cancellable, and any auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information: the action, the transport requirement, and the server-side enforcement.

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 6-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of action, prerequisite, and limit enforcement but leaves notable gaps: the side enum's dual semantics, the role of client_order_id, and return/failure behavior are all unaddressed.

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 only 44% (9 params, 6 required), so the description should compensate for the gap but adds nothing about any parameter. It is silent on the ambiguous side enum (which mixes yes/no with buy/sell) and on the undocumented user_id, market_id, subaccount_id, and client_order_id.

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 ("Submit a new order"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the order-management siblings like cancel_order, cancel_all_orders, orders_open, and orders_history. There is no competing order-placement sibling, so no explicit differentiation is required, but it also doesn't clarify how it relates to mm_quote_post or rfq_create.

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 gives a prerequisite (Idempotency-Key header) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not explain the relationship to the other order/quote entry points (mm_quote_post, rfq_accept) or conditions under which this tool is the right choice.

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