getConditionalOrders

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns orders from all channels, supports cursor-based paging, mentions rate limits, and explains status values beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (types, status values, paging, rate limits) and no unnecessary words. It is concise yet informative.

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 description covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, paging, and response fields like 'type' and 'nextCursor'. Without an output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool, though a full response structure would be ideal.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds extra context about the 'type' field in responses and clarifies symbol usage across statuses, which supplements the schema.

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 clearly states it lists conditional orders and specifies that it returns all types from all channels, which helps distinguish from related tools like getConditionalOrder. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or 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 description explains when to use the tool (listing conditional orders) and provides details on parameters like status and symbol. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., getConditionalOrder for a single order).

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