check_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It openly states the main side effect—executing fills—and frames the tool as a trigger/evaluation step. But it doesn't mention account scoping, whether fills are irreversible real trades, partial-fill behavior, or what happens when there are no pending orders.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action, the second the cadence. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns 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?

The core action and triggering cadence are present, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a side-effecting tool with no annotations, the undocumented account parameter and the ambiguous 'all pending' scope leave a material gap: an agent cannot tell whether this operates on one account or all, or what consequences fills have beyond the output schema.

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 has one parameter (account) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. 'All pending limit orders' even creates ambiguity about whether account filters the scope. The description adds no meaning to the only parameter, so an agent cannot infer what account means or how to set it.

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 and resource: it 'checks all pending limit orders against live prices and executes fills.' This clearly names the tool's action and distinguishes it from siblings like list_orders (view only), cancel_order (cancel), and place_limit_order (create).

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?

It gives one explicit usage directive ('Call this periodically to trigger limit order evaluation'), which tells an agent when to invoke it. However, it provides no guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as list_orders or resolve/resolve_all; 'periodically' is vague and no exclusions are stated.

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