order_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that no POST calls are made and mentions the in-memory nature, but omits details such as authentication requirements, error handling, return format, or what happens on success/failure.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the primary action, the second clarifies a key behavioral trait, and the third provides a specific usage hint. No extraneous content.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what an 'in-memory preview contract' produces, how the parameters affect the preview, or how the result compares to similar tools like order_validate. Significant completeness gaps remain.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides zero explanation of any parameter (e.g., request, date, accountSeq, ttlSeconds, delegatedAuthority). This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 that the tool creates an 'in-memory preview contract' and explicitly distinguishes itself from actual order submission by noting it never calls Toss order POST endpoints. The purpose is clear, but the concept of a 'preview contract' could be more precisely defined.

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 it is a safe dry-run tool ('never calls POST endpoints') and provides the confirmation text needed for order_execute, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like order_validate or order_create, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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