propose_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses that the order is 'synthetic' (nothing real is executed) and that the token 'expires', both non-obvious traits. It omits the TTL, whether the call is idempotent-side-effect-free, and what invalidation looks like, leaving real gaps.

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; every clause (validate, synthetic, BUY limit, expiring token) carries information.

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 output schema covers the return token, so return values needn't be described, and the synthetic/expiring behavior is stated. But for an unannotated, undocumented-parameter tool, the description leaves idempotency_key and the confirm_order handoff unexplained, which is not enough to invoke confidently.

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 all six nested OrderRequest fields are undocumented. The description only implicitly covers side=buy and limit_price; symbol format, quantity limits, broker_id='paper', and especially idempotency_key semantics are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Validate') plus a precise resource ('synthetic BUY limit order') and states the artifact returned ('expiring confirmation token'). That distinguishes it from the write-side sibling confirm_order, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 two-step intent (validate, then use the token) is implied by 'confirmation token' but never spelled out, and confirm_order is not named as the follow-up. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer the flow.

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