avanza_verify_no_raw_failed_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it is a 'check' but doesn't state whether it is read-only, what it returns, whether failures are reported as a list/count/boolean, or whether the tool errors when failed orders are found.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and front-loads the key 'compact post-mutation check' concept. It is appropriately short, though some brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must explain the check's behavior and context. It doesn't state what a successful check returns, how 'regular orders' relates to paper or stoploss variants, or what the optional parameters actually scope.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 50% schema description coverage and undocumented parameters like account_id and orderbook_ids, the description should help clarify invocation scope but doesn't mention any parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource ('failed/rejected open regular orders') and a clear purpose ('post-mutation check'), reinforced by the tool name's 'verify no'. It is reasonably distinguishable from raw listing tools like avanza_open_orders_raw, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 phrase 'post-mutation' gives a general timing cue for when to run the tool, but it doesn't specify which mutations should be followed or when to prefer alternatives such as avanza_open_orders_raw or avanza_verify_protection. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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