place_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that orders are sent to a paper broker, that they go out as brackets, and that submission does not mean fill. It also enumerates refusal conditions, providing transparency about failure modes.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, then key constraints, refusal conditions, a note on bracket behavior, and a pointer to a related tool. No sentence is wasted; the length is justified by the richness of safety-critical information.

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 tool's complexity as a side-effecting order placement, the description covers the preconditions (risk approval), the exact input, the operational behavior (brackets), and the post-submission expectation (check get_broker_orders). The presence of an output schema means return-value details are handled separately, so the description is appropriately complete.

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 only the parameter name and type with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that thesis_id is 'the identifier returned by journal_thesis.' This gives the agent exactly the semantic information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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+resource: 'Send a journalled, risk-approved thesis to the paper broker.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like journal_thesis (creates the thesis) and size_position (sizes it). It states exactly what the tool does and its scope.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (for placing orders from approved theses) and lists refusal conditions that act as when-not-to-use guidance. It also points to get_broker_orders for checking fills, effectively directing users away from using this tool for that purpose.

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