Get conditional orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a small amount of behavioral context by explaining the tool lists trigger-based orders and that the output includes conditionalOrderId, but it does not discuss details like pagination behavior or response format. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and then provides useful guidance on usage and sibling differentiation. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 simple list tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is sufficient. It includes purpose, usage context, and sibling differentiation. It does not explain the return format, but the mention of 'conditionalOrderId' hints at the key output, and the lack of an output schema raises the bar slightly. Still, the coverage is strong given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'filtered by status' which aligns with the required status param but does not provide semantics beyond what the schema already explains. Minimal added value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists conditional (trigger-based) orders in the account, filtered by status.' It also differentiates from the sibling toss_get_orders by stating that regular orders are listed separately, and clarifies that the tool is used to find conditionalOrderId for modify/cancel preparations.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it says to use this tool to find the conditionalOrderId needed by specific sibling tools, and notes that regular orders are handled by toss_get_orders. This provides clear context on when to use the tool and an alternative, satisfying the top criterion.

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