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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing the trigger-to-execution mechanics: reduce-only, IOC limit conversion on trigger, slippage bound with a 500 bps default, and the directional bound (BUY above trigger, SELL below). It stops short of covering failure modes, permission/margin requirements, or whether the resting conditional can be modified.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and the most error-prone rule (closing side), then execution mechanics. The nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse, but no sentence is 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond safety flags, the description covers the trigger, execution, and slippage model thoroughly enough to invoke correctly. Gaps remain around size units, clientId semantics, and the market symbol format.

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 17% (slippageBps alone), so the description must compensate, and it does for the most semantically loaded parameters: side (closing side semantics), triggerPrice (trigger point), and slippageBps (execution bound, default 500, raise for thin books). market, size, and clientId remain undefined in both places, leaving units and client-order-ID behavior ambiguous.

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 (place a reduce-only Take profit conditional order) and immediately scopes it with 'triggers at triggerPrice', which cleanly separates it from place_stop_loss, place_limit_order, and open_position in the sibling list.

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 gives a strong correctness rule for one parameter ('Side must be the CLOSING side of the position: SELL closes a LONG, BUY closes a SHORT'), which implies this is a position-exit tool, but it never says when to prefer this over place_stop_loss, close_position, or close_all_positions, and states no exclusions or prerequisites.

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