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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — the default filter returns only open orders — but says nothing about read-only semantics, auth expectations, pagination, ordering, or result shape for a multi-parameter listing tool.

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?

Two short fragments with zero preamble; the resource and the default behavior are front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, though the terseness is under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

A three-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a sentence. The default status is covered, but the description never says what an order record contains or how results are scoped/ordered, leaving gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 the schema already documents key, market, and status; baseline is 3. The description adds one genuine clarification the schema lacks — that status defaults to open — but leaves market and key semantics entirely to 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?

"Your orders" names the resource but supplies no verb and reads as a fragment; the agent must infer 'list/fetch'. The default-scope note and the contrast with siblings like get_positions and cancel_orders make it barely identifiable, but the purpose is only implied.

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?

"Open ones by default" hints at the default filter but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer status=all, and no comparison against siblings such as get_positions or cancel_orders. The agent has to infer both the trigger and the alternative.

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