list_orders

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds rate limit (1 request per 5 seconds) and local truncation behavior of the limit parameter. No contradictions; additional context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is compact yet comprehensive, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by return fields and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers all aspects: what it does, what it returns, parameters, rate limits, and data scope (pending only). Output schema exists, but description still provides useful field details. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter 'limit' with schema coverage 100%. Description adds that limit truncates the list locally, providing behavioral nuance not in schema. The default and constraints are already in schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists pending equity orders, specifies the status filter (not yet filled/cancelled/expired), and provides a detailed list of returned fields. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like list_historical_orders and get_order.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving current open orders by specifying 'pending'. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, but the scope is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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