place_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool submits orders but lacks details on execution behavior (e.g., immediate vs. pending), error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a simulation (paper trading) versus real trading. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured parameter and return explanations. It avoids redundancy, though the return statement could be more specific.

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 complexity of a trading tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., execution details, error cases) and relies on the output schema for return values, leaving gaps in operational guidance.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'symbol: Ticker symbol', 'limit_price: Required if order_type is limit'), clarifying semantics that the schema alone does not provide, though it could elaborate on units or constraints for qty and limit_price.

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 the specific action ('Submits a market or limit order'), the target resource ('to Alpaca paper trading'), and distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_order or get_order_history by focusing on order creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 implies usage for trading orders in a paper trading environment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_order or get_order_history, nor does it mention prerequisites such as account setup or market hours.

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