list_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral scope differences per source — Alpaca returns only open orders while Kite returns a current-day order book — but says nothing about ordering, limits, pagination, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its words on source enumeration rather than on the disambiguation an agent would find more useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple zero-required-parameter read. Still, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should have spelled out the broker_id value set and default to be fully callable without guessing.

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 single broker_id parameter has no enum in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming the three order sources, but does not enumerate the actual accepted values (paper/alpaca/kite) or note that 'paper' is the default.

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?

States a specific verb (read/list) and resource (orders), and enumerates the three distinct order sources it can return. It is distinguishable from get_order_status by being a listing operation, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 three sources imply that source selection is the key decision, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_order_status over list_orders, and no statement of which broker_id values map to which source.

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