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

Excellently discloses behavioral traits: explains the broadcast-commit vs async nature of GTT and SHORT_TERM, the meaning of broadcast code 0 vs actual fill status, and rate limiting. This goes well beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), adding significant value.

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 concise (3 sentences) and informative, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for behaviors), but it is efficient and easy to read.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key behaviors (timeInForce, confirmation, rate limits) and explains the return format. It is fairly complete but could benefit from brief explanations of less common parameters like postOnly and reduceOnly.

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 55%, so some parameters lack schema descriptions. The description adds context for timeInForce and confirm, but does not elaborate on other parameters like postOnly, reduceOnly, clientId, etc. It provides moderate added value 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 'Place a limit order', which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like place_market_order or place_stop_loss, but the purpose is well-understood.

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?

Provides detailed guidance on when to use GTT vs SHORT_TERM timeInForce, mentions rate limiting for stateful orders, and explains how to interpret the confirmation result. However, it does not advise when to choose a limit order over a market order, which is a notable omission given sibling tools.

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