get_open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It plainly states the operation type (fetch) and the scope (active/pending/working orders). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, pagination, or behavior when no orders exist, which would be expected for a fully transparent description.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a useful status qualifier, earning a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no annotations) but the description leaves gaps: it does not mention pagination limits, authentication requirements, or whether the returned orders are from the current session. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the lack of usage guidance and behavioral details makes the description minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description reinforces that the tool takes no input and returns all matching orders. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not contradict or add unnecessary detail beyond that baseline.

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 verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'all active/pending/working orders on the Webull account', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_open_positions (positions vs. orders) and order management tools (draft_order, cancel_order).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, no reference to sibling tools, and no context about prerequisites or account requirements.

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