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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: it returns an estimate and the market minimums, and it 'refuses in plain words' rather than throwing opaque errors. It stops short of saying what conditions trigger a refusal (below minimum, unknown market, unaffordable budget), which would have made this a 5.

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 a short behavioral clause, with the core transformation front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical parameter list is slightly redundant against the schema but still readable and scannable.

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 an 8-parameter planner with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what goes in, which tool consumes the result, that an estimate and minimums come back, and that failures are explained in text. It is largely complete, though it could be sharper about the market-vs-limit branches and refusal triggers.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the budgetPm/shares split and unit conventions. The description's parenthetical list (market reference, outcome label, PM budget or shares, price in percent) mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning, and action, orderType and expiresAt are not addressed.

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 states a concrete transformation (PM terms -> exact problee_place_limit_order arguments) and enumerates the inputs it consumes, so an agent knows this is a planner/preparation step rather than the placement call itself. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like problee_estimate_market_order or problee_batch_prepare_orders, and the target being place_limit_order while the schema allows orderType=market creates mild ambiguity.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this runs before placing an order because it produces place-order arguments plus an estimate and minimums. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, no mention of when to prefer problee_estimate_market_order or problee_prepare_trade instead, so routing must be inferred.

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