order_place

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 but provides none. It doesn't mention that this is a potentially destructive/mutative operation (placing orders typically involves financial transactions), what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. The description is completely inadequate for a financial transaction tool.

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 maximally concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself is efficiently 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?

For a complex financial order placement tool with a rich input schema (Order object with 11 properties, multiple enums) and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no usage guidelines. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for these fundamental 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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention the 'order' parameter, what it contains, or how to structure it. For a complex tool with a nested Order object containing 11 properties, this is a critical deficiency.

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 'Выставление биржевой заявки' (Placing a stock exchange order) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'order_place'. It doesn't specify what type of order (market, limit, stop, etc.) or provide any distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'order_cancel' or 'order_get'. While it indicates the general domain, it lacks specificity about the actual operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to orders (order_cancel, order_get, order_get_list), but the description doesn't indicate this is for creating new orders versus managing existing ones. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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