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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the composition of results (resting + untriggered conditional orders), the return envelope { orders: [...] }, and a conditional `note` field that appears when zero orders coexist with open positions. With no output schema present, this return-shape disclosure is exactly the burden the description must carry.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adding return shape and the get_positions boundary. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, it covers result shape, membership rules, and the sibling it is often confused with. The only shortfall is the silent `limit` parameter, whose pagination semantics an agent must still guess at.

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 description coverage is only 33% — `market` is documented and enum-constrained `side` is self-explanatory, but `limit` (max 100, exclusiveMinimum 0) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's 'optionally filtered by market and side' restates the two obvious params without adding format or pagination meaning, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get currently active ORDERS for the subaccount') with scope and filter dimensions. It explicitly separates itself from get_positions by declaring that filled orders leave no open order, so an agent can distinguish the two without reading either 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?

Gives a clear inclusion rule (open resting orders plus untriggered conditional TP/SL) and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('a filled market/limit order leaves NO open order, it becomes a POSITION — see get_positions'). It lacks an explicit 'call this when...' phrasing, but the routing condition is unambiguous from the text.

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