place_equity_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the order is synthetic (no live execution) and that a missing receipt results in a logged 'missing_receipt deny'. However, it omits success behavior, response format, side effects, or any other operational details. It adds meaningful behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then adds critical behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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 the complexity (8 parameters, nested receipt object, authorization workflow, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks return value expectations, does not explain how to obtain the authorization receipt, and does not describe parameter constraints or the meaning of 'bound to these args' in terms of args_hash. It provides essential context but leaves many operational gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning for the 'receipt' parameter by noting it must be 'bound to these args' and that it is 'optional on the wire'. Other parameters (symbol, side, quantity, notional) are self-explanatory by name, and the description does not elaborate further, leaving some semantics unexplained (e.g., limit_price, confidence). It provides partial compensation.

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 states the tool places a 'Synthetic equity order' with an explicit scope ('trading:equities:place') and clarifies it is not a live venue. This clearly identifies the action and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rebalance_portfolio or wire_treasury_transfer beyond the equity-order focus.

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 implies the tool requires a signed authorization receipt but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it direct the agent to obtain the receipt from a specific sibling (e.g., request_authorization or issue_approval_receipt). It provides context (synthetic, no live venue) but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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