validate_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does add meaningful traits: 'deterministic' and 'without submitting an order,' which rule out randomness and order placement side effects. It doesn't disclose input requirements or failure behavior, but the core safety property is stated.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key safety distinction, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

A tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage needs more than a one-line description for correct invocation. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and unclear boundaries versus sibling risk tools.

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 does not explain any of the five required parameters. The agent is left with only parameter names and no guidance on formats, allowed values, or meaning, so the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 ('Run') with a clear resource ('pre-trade risk checks') and adds the key distinction 'without submitting an order.' This makes it easy to distinguish from order-submission siblings like submit_paper_order.

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 'without submitting an order' gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when validation is needed but execution is not. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, especially relative to trip_risk_circuit_breaker.

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