validate_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is validated but does not describe the tool's behavior, such as whether it performs read-only checks, returns validation results, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like logging. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Validate a set of orders') and lists specific checks. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly improved by structuring the checks more clearly (e.g., with bullet points or commas). Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how validation results are presented, or error handling. For a validation tool with multiple inputs and no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the meaning or usage of 'order_ids', 'symbol', or 'status' parameters, nor how they relate to the validation checks mentioned. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate a set of orders' with specific checks (symbol validity, venue status, duplicate ClOrdIDs, client status). It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('orders'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_orders' or 'check_ticker', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what the tool checks but does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used before sending orders or as a diagnostic step. Without such usage context, the agent lacks clear direction.

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