avanza_instrument_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. The verb 'Read' does convey a non-mutating operation, and 'optional raw payload diagnostics' discloses that output may include raw payloads. However, it does not explain behaviors tied to refresh, compact, include_raw's default, or what 'diagnostics' actually contains, and it does not clarify that this excludes stoploss orders beyond the word 'regular'.

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 well-structured sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional diagnostics behavior is appended as a secondary clause. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no title, yet the description does not explain return values, parameter interactions, or the relationship to overlapping siblings. The alias parameters, status values, and the compact/refresh/include_raw interplay are all left to the agent to discover, making the description inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for account_id/orderbook_id ('one instrument/account') and include_raw ('raw payload diagnostics'), but leaves side, status, compact, refresh, order_book_id, and instrument_name semantically unexplained. The orderbook_id vs order_book_id alias relationship is not clarified, and status is a free string with no value hints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('open/pending regular orders'), and a scope ('one instrument/account'). The qualifier 'regular' helps distinguish from stoploss siblings, and 'raw payload diagnostics' hints at the include_raw behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from near-identical siblings like avanza_open_orders, avanza_open_orders_raw, and avanza_ongoing_orders.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. Given a sibling list containing avanza_open_orders, avanza_open_orders_raw, and avanza_ongoing_orders, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over those. The scope phrase 'one instrument/account' only weakly implies the per-instrument use case.

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