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 key operational context: Authorization Bearer token, x402 payment after the first free resting order, x_payment header, and idempotency_key requirement. However, it does not describe mutation/irreversibility, failure behavior, or what happens to the order after submission.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core action and then lists the key requirements efficiently.

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 9-parameter order-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers auth, payment, and idempotency, but omits the meaning and constraints of most parameters, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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% across 9 parameters. The description explains only x_payment and idempotency_key, leaving core parameters like side, capability, limit_cents, size, scope, min_fill, and ttl_ticks completely 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: resting a sealed order or offer. It is understandable as the order-submission tool, though the domain term 'sealed' and 'Rest' could be clearer, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like posttrade or own_orders.

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 prerequisites such as Bearer auth and x402 payment, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools or exclusions. The only conditional usage note is the free first resting order followed by payment.

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