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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations: the workspace will be charged, items become non-modifiable after submission, and the quote may be delayed. These are crucial financial and mutability consequences that the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false) do not convey. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, necessary preconditions/constraints, important billing and polling context, and a final bulk-support note. Each sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a side-effect-heavy operation: preconditions, post-submission immutability, charging behavior, and quote timing. It does not explain the response/return value, and the 'account' parameter remains unaddressed, but the overall operational context is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains order_id through context ('submits an open order') and explicitly introduces order_ids for batched execution. However, the optional 'account' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving one of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 clearly states the action: 'Submits an open order for processing.' It identifies the specific resource (order) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_order, get_order, and list_orders by focusing on the submission action. Additional details about item modification and bulk support further refine the purpose.

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 gives clear context: the order must be open, have at least one item, and becomes immutable after submission. It also advises polling order details if the quote is needed before submission. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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