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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive write to an open world; the description adds real execution semantics that annotations cannot convey — immediate crossing where possible, resting until expiry, and on-chain settlement (i.e., finality and cost). It omits failure/rejection behavior and idempotency of resubmission, which matters for a signed-order 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?

Three short sentences with no filler: what it does first, then the matching/resting rule, then settlement. Front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 still covers the order lifecycle (match, rest, settle), which is the key unknown for a write tool. What it lacks is what a successful submission returns (order id / fill status) and what a rejection looks like, which an agent needs to decide whether to retry or re-prepare.

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% for both parameters, and the schema already explains that order is the unchanged typedData.message from prepare_order and signature is 0x-prefixed. The description only reinforces "signed", adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Submits a signed order") and adds what happens to it: immediate matching against the book, remainder resting until expiry, on-chain settlement. That clearly separates it from prepare_order and the prepare_* siblings, though it never names the prepare_order prerequisite explicitly (only the schema does).

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (that the order must come from prepare_order and be signed by the agent's key) and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by "signed order" plus the schema reference to prepare_order. An agent can infer the flow but must open the schema to do so.

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