dzengi_preflight_order

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is provided by structured data. The description adds that validation occurs against fresh broker metadata and configured policy, which gives some behavioral context, but it doesn't describe what happens on failure, what is returned, or any side effects beyond what annotations state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It captures the tool's purpose and boundary condition in a tight statement, which is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is a 17-parameter validation operation with no output schema and no description of the returned validation outcome or failure behavior. The description is too minimal to allow an agent to know what parameters require attention or what a result means, making it incomplete in 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?

With 17 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate heavily, but it only refers generically to an 'order intent'. It gives no meaning to key parameters such as side, type, quantity, price, timeInForce, or accountId, leaving an agent to guess at their roles.

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 ('validate') and resource ('order intent'), and explicitly distinguishes this from order placement with 'without placing it.' This clearly surpasses the tautological baseline and positions it against the sibling place_order tool.

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 makes the primary usage context clear: it is a validation step that does not place an order. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion conditions, but the 'without placing it' qualifier is a clear, actionable hint for when to use this over a placement tool.

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