check_order_safety

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe repeated calls. The description adds the list of checks and that it returns ALLOW/BLOCK, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It provides some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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, consisting of two sentences that quickly convey the purpose and scope. It lists specific checks, avoiding fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 8 parameters with no schema coverage, no output schema, and a moderately complex tool (13 checks), the description fails to explain parameter roles or output format. Essential information is missing, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 0%, meaning the description does not mention any of the 8 parameters (qty, side, broker, symbol, etc.). The description only states the tool runs checks and returns outcomes, offering no insight into parameter meaning or usage. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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 it runs 13 pre-trade safety checks before placing an order and returns ALLOW or BLOCK with reasons. The verb 'check' and resource 'order safety' are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bracket_integrity_check' or 'request_trade_confirmation'.

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 phrase 'before placing an order' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The list of checks and 'and more' gives some context but lacks exclusion criteria.

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