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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds domain behavior annotations cannot express: that trigger-based orders are folded into the result set under specific type and order_id conventions, and that sizes are denominated in the base coin while prices are in USD. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, inclusions, usage/exclusion, inputs/units, and the follow-up call. Scope and routing information are front-loaded with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. Given that, the description covers everything an agent needs for a read-only, zero-required-parameter query: what is included, how to filter, what units to expect, when not to use it, and what to call next.

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% and both properties already carry descriptions ('Only this venue', 'Only this base coin'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds that both filters are optional and reinforces that symbol is a base-coin filter, but contributes no format, casing, or combining-behavior detail beyond that.

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 names a specific resource (resting orders on the user's exchange accounts) and immediately disambiguates the non-obvious inclusions: protective stops/takes (is_trigger = true) and TradeHub trigger entries (type TRIGGER_ENTRY, order_id req_…). An agent can distinguish this from get_my_open_positions and get_my_trade_history without opening any schema.

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 two concrete use cases ('find an order_id to cancel', 'confirm a stop is in place'), an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Not for filled trades (use get_my_trade_history)'), and a next-step pointer to cancel_open_order. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all stated.

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