get_broker_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'daily' scope and 'per sub-account' context, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like whether it returns only filled orders, whether it includes cancelled orders, or whether it requires an account parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded with the main subject, but it lacks the detail needed to be genuinely useful. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place as a complete tool description.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the return format is, whether pagination exists, or how to interpret the order book. The annotations cover safety but not usage context. The description should at least mention that it lists orders for a sub-account and possibly that it is read-only.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'một tiểu khoản' (a sub-account), which maps to the 'account' parameter. It does not explain the 'broker' enum (dnse/ssi/tcbs) or the 'market' enum (STOCK/DERIVATIVE), nor does it clarify that account is optional or how it defaults. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Sổ lệnh trong ngày của một tiểu khoản' (Vietnamese for 'Daily order book of a sub-account') states a specific resource (orders) and scope (daily, per sub-account), but it is vague about the action: it does not explicitly say 'get' or 'list' orders, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like cancel_broker_order or place_broker_order. The title 'Order book' helps slightly, but the description alone is not fully clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is read-only, that it returns today's orders, or that it should be used before placing/cancelling orders. Sibling tools like get_broker_positions and get_broker_accounts exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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