get_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what data is returned (ticket, symbol, type, volume, trigger price), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('List pending limit/stop orders') and adds necessary detail about the returned attributes. There's no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and what data to expect. It doesn't have an output schema, but the description specifies the return attributes. For a straightforward list tool, this provides adequate 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('pending limit/stop orders'), specifying the exact scope of what's being retrieved. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_positions or get_history by focusing specifically on pending orders with specific attributes (ticket, symbol, type, volume, trigger price).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need pending limit/stop orders with specific attributes), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether get_positions or get_history might be better for different types of order data, though the specificity helps guide usage.

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