list_pending_orders

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description defines what 'pending' means, details the exact return structure ({'orders': [...], 'lastTransactionID': '...'}), and lists per-order fields with types (signed decimal string, decimal string, RFC3339). It also mentions attached on-fill details, which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 consists of two focused sentences. The first states the purpose and definition, and the second conveys the return format. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the purpose, the meaning of 'pending', and the return structure. It also leverages a sibling reference (list_orders) to avoid repeating field definitions.

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?

The only parameter (limit) is fully documented in the input schema with type, default, minimum, and description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every pending (not yet filled or cancelled) order on the account.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_orders by focusing on pending only, and defines 'pending' explicitly (not yet filled or cancelled).

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 clearly implies the intended use case (viewing pending orders) and references list_orders for field structure, which helps an agent relate it to the broader tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_orders or any exclusions, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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