prepare_order_plan

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: requires approval, demo only, never sent. However, it is vague about what 'requires approval' entails and does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects.

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, informative sentence with no fluff. While concise, it could benefit from slight restructuring or bullet points for readability.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values or parameter semantics, leaving significant ambiguity for a complex planning tool.

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 provides no parameter explanations. Users must infer parameter roles from context, which is insufficient for 9 parameters including required fields like 'order_type' and 'price'.

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 tool builds a full order plan including request, margin, estimated P/L, and order_check. It distinguishes itself by noting it is demo-only and never sent, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'check_order' or 'calculate_margin'.

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 provides usage context: 'Requires approval; demo only; NEVER sent.' This implies it's for planning rather than execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calculate_margin' or 'check_order' for individual components.

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