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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by defining the full status lifecycle (PENDING with auto-execution nuance, EXECUTING, EXECUTED, EXPIRED, CANCELLED labelled as rejected, FAILED, CLOSED) and noting paginated results, which is genuine domain context an agent needs to interpret output.

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 core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the status glossary earns its length because no enum is defined in the schema. The list is dense but no sentence is pure filler; only the trailing 'Read-only' repeats an annotation.

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 output schema, the description usefully supplies the status vocabulary and pagination behavior, and annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of describing result ordering, default filtering behavior, or what fields each order record contains, which would round out a read-only listing tool.

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 100%, so limit, offset, status, and symbol are already documented in the schema; the description adds no filter syntax, defaults, or combination guidance. The status-value glossary indirectly helps interpret the status filter, but that is marginal added value over the schema baseline.

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 the orders to authorize (suggested orders)') and adds the crucial scope that these are orders proposed by an AI to the user, which distinguishes it from get_conditional_orders or the broker-order siblings. The alias 'suggested orders' also links it to suggest_order and cancel_suggested_order so an agent can place it correctly in the lifecycle.

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 implies when you'd call it — checking the authorization status of AI-proposed orders — but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as get_conditional_orders or cancel_suggested_order, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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