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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the auth prerequisite chain for LIVE, the fact that PAPER mode needs no signature, the fee rate and automatic settlement, and a hard minimum notional of $10. Gaps remain around failure behavior, whether the returned typed_data expires, and how reduce_only interacts with brackets.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then stacked parenthetical qualifiers for mode, fees, brackets, and sizing — every clause carries information, with no filler. The dense em-dash chaining makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted breakdown would be, but nothing is wasted.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: mode semantics, authentication prerequisites, fee and minimum-notional constraints, and both sizing paths. What is missing is the return shape for the PAPER path and any statement about rejection or partial-fill behavior.

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 36% across 11 parameters, and the description compensates well for sizing — it explains tp/sl as the bracket pair and gives the actual risk-first formula (size = risk / |entry − stop|). However limit_price, reduce_only, type, and side receive no explanation beyond their schemas, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Place an order') and immediately disambiguates the two execution paths: PAPER simulates a fill against real prices, LIVE produces typed_data to sign and hand to submit_order. An agent can tell precisely what this tool does and how it relates to submit_order, authorize_trading_key, and create_trading_wallet without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite sequence for LIVE mode (create_trading_wallet + authorize_trading_key first) and the follow-up tool (submit_order), so the agent knows the ordering constraint and what to call next. It also gives two mutually exclusive sizing strategies with the condition that selects each (explicit size vs. risk_usd + stop_price).

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