Reconcile Trade Intent

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover side-effect transparency. The description adds context about comparing against current order status and positions, clarifying the read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, though the annotations compensate.

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 concise and focused, using one sentence to convey the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain the output format, but the schema likely covers that, and the tool's role is clear within the trading context.

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 only parameter, intent_id, has no schema description. The tool description mentions 'trade intent' but does not explicitly define what intent_id represents or its format. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description could clarify the expected 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 uses the verb 'Refresh', which is specific to updating the state of a trade intent. It identifies the resource ('trade intent') and the context ('against current broker order status and positions'), distinguishing it from other trading tools. However, it could be more explicit about the outcome of the refresh.

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 does not specify when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as get_trade_intent or get_order_status. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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