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

Annotations show it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds critical context beyond annotations: it states the side effect 'SPENDS internal TRX balance and creates a live order; not idempotent — each call places a new order.' It also clarifies the session handling and that internal tools never accept API keys. 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 relatively long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action and covers prerequisites, behavioral notes, and alternatives. While efficient, it could be slightly more concise without losing 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?

Given the complex context (7 parameters, 2 required, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, two distinct paths), the description is comprehensive. It covers the action, session requirement, behavioral effects, pricing guidance, and return value `{ orderId }`. No significant gaps.

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. The description adds extra meaning: it explains how to derive `unitPrice` from the `tronsave_internal_order_estimate` tool and mentions default values (e.g., 'Default MEDIUM when omitted' for unitPrice, 'Default ENERGY when omitted' for resourceType, 'Default 259200 (3 days) when omitted' for durationSec). This goes beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Place a new buy order for ENERGY or BANDWIDTH on TronSave, paid from the internal account balance.' It specifies the resource type and distinguishes from the sibling tool `tronsave_create_order` for the signature-session market path, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'This is the api-key/internal path; for the signature-session market path use `tronsave_create_order`.' It also explains the prerequisite of a logged-in session via `tronsave_login` and how to include the session ID, and provides guidance on deriving `unitPrice` from the latest estimate.

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