list_conditional_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (which order types are included, and that app-registered orders appear too), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the scope caveat. Nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a five-parameter, fully documented read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient — pagination and filters live in the schema. The one real gap is sibling disambiguation, which matters here because list_orders and get_conditional_order sit adjacent to it.

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%, with limit, cursor, status, symbol, and account_seq all documented in the schema itself, including the OPEN/CLOSED enum semantics and the TOSSINVEST_ACCOUNT_SEQ default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('조건주문(SINGLE·OCO·OTO) 목록을 조회한다') and even clarifies scope by noting app-registered conditional orders are included. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_orders (regular orders) or get_conditional_order (single fetch).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_orders or get_conditional_order, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an account context. The usage is only implied by the fact that it lists conditional orders; nothing tells the agent which sibling to pick.

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