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

Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, idempotent, non-read-only, but the description adds what they cannot: the pre-trade hook can allow, deny (hook_denied) or hold (held) the order, and an `unknown` outcome means the order MAY have executed. It also warns about untrusted_text prompt-injection payloads and explains client_request_id idempotency semantics.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded with the verb and the field semantics, with no filler sentences. The single long paragraph with semicolon-delimited clauses is efficient but slightly run-on for the safety-critical content.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical gaps: outcome states, idempotency, and the untrusted-data warning. It stops short of describing the success return payload, though the outcome vocabulary (hook_denied, held, unknown) gives the agent enough to act on.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field constraints the schema cannot express: price is required for limit/stop/stop_limit, volume must respect the symbol's minVolume/volumeStep, and stop_loss/take_profit are absolute prices rather than offsets. That is genuine meaning beyond the per-field schema text.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Place an order') and the following clauses define the operational space (side, order_type, volume, price semantics). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like cancel_order, modify_order, or close_position.

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 explicit routing for the ambiguous case: on an `unknown` outcome, never retry with a new client_request_id, and call get_trade_status and get_positions/get_orders first. It also explains the hook outcomes (allow/deny/hold). It lacks a general statement of when to prefer this over modify_order or close_position, but the risky-path guidance is concrete.

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