Validate Order

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals meaningful behavior: the response always reports deviation from house floors, rejections quote the exact floor, and this same function gates live capital. This adds decision-relevant context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then briefly enumerates the key inputs and behaviors. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the core validation thresholds, input shapes, override semantics, output behavior, and production relevance. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be spelled out here, and the annotation set already covers safety and idempotency.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the house-floor numbers, the order shape, and that overrides still report deviations from the house floors rather than the overridden values.

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 names a specific verb ('Validate'), a resource ('a proposed order'), and the exact scope ('against the house floors', max position 25%, gross cap 60%). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by stating the validation semantics and noting it is 'the same function gating live capital.'

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 makes the tool's intended use obvious: validate a proposed order against exposure floors, with optional per-fund overrides and current positions. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over siblings like cost_check or validate_genome, but the context is clear enough that an agent should not confuse them.

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