avanza_paper_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it only says 'List', implying a read-only operation, and 'local paper-trading', hinting this does not hit live order state. It does not disclose the effect of active_only, how account selection resolves, or whether any state is modified. This is below the bar for an unaided 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?

The definition is one front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'List' comes first, the resource and account scope follow immediately. It earns a high mark for efficiency even though it omits details captured under other dimensions.

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, but without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves important gaps: active_only is undefined, 'events' is not explained, and there are many sibling paper/order tools that this description does not disambiguate. It is minimally sufficient for a simple list call but not complete enough for confident selection.

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 prose must explain parameters. It addresses account_id ('or a supplied account_id') but says nothing about active_only or its default false value. The meaning of account_id when omitted is only implied via 'selected account'.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('local paper-trading orders and events'), and it clarifies account selection. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from real-order tools. However, 'events' is vague and it does not explicitly separate this from closely related paper_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: the tool can run against the currently selected account or an explicit account_id. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many paper_* read tools (e.g., avanza_paper_trades, avanza_paper_positions). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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