Validate Against Profile

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the success return shape: 'passed=true and an empty violations list.' This implies the failure mode (passed=false with violations) and clarifies the tool's non-mutating, purely diagnostic nature.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated efficiently, making every word earn its place.

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 read-only validation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on which profile_id or account_id to use, but the schema and annotations make the call safe and the purpose clear.

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 provides no information about the parameters, and the top-level schema has no descriptions for account_id or profile_id (0% coverage). While the nested OrderSpec definition is rich, the tool description itself does not compensate for the top-level schema gaps or clarify how profile selection works.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('a proposed order against the agent's trading profile constraints'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like assess_order_impact or preview_order, but the validation-specific framing is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assess_order_impact or check_position_limits. The description states what it does but provides no context about when validation should be invoked in the order workflow.

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