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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: market order execution, size/notionalUsd mutual exclusivity, bracket legs placed only if entry succeeds, reduce-only nature, execution bound, and slippage cap. No contradiction 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 dense but clear, front-loading the main action and detailing constraints progressively. Each sentence adds value, though 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?

With no output schema, the description covers return values (confirmation, bracket IDs) and main behavior (entry with conditional orders). It lacks error conditions or handling of partial failures, but the complexity (8 parameters) is well-addressed.

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 75%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains mutual exclusivity of size and notionalUsd, conversion details, default slippage, and bracket parameters' behavior (reduce-only, opposite side, execution bound). This goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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 tool enters a new position with a market order and optionally attaches bracket orders. It distinguishes itself from siblings like place_market_order (which lacks position context) and close_position by focusing on opening a new position with conditional orders.

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 specifies when to use (entering a new position with a market order) and when to use bracket attachments. However, it lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives like place_market_order for simpler market entries or place_stop_loss/place_take_profit for standalone conditional orders.

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