submit_paper_order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses that the order is paper-only and that prior risk validation is mandatory, which are useful traits. However, it does not explain failure behavior, required permissions, or side effects, so it only partially satisfies the burden.

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 filler. Every part contributes meaning: 'submit', 'paper-only order', and the pre-trade validation requirement.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is missing essential usage context: parameter semantics are completely undocumented and there are no annotations. The description provides a high-level workflow hint but is not sufficient for an agent to construct valid calls reliably.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the five required parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to guess valid values for side, quantity, limit_price, and client_order_id.

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 states a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('paper-only order'), and adds a key ordering constraint ('after mandatory pre-trade risk validation') that distinguishes it from sibling validation tools. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 phrase 'after mandatory pre-trade risk validation' gives the agent explicit context about when to invoke this tool relative to the validation workflow. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the precondition is clear enough for correct sequencing.

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