validate_orders

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists checks but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns specific output. No indication of rate limits or destructive potential.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It lists the checks efficiently. However, it lacks structure like sections or bullet points, and could be more organized while remaining 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or prerequisite conditions. The list of checks is helpful but insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning for any of the three parameters. The checks mentioned (e.g., duplicate ClOrdIDs) don't map clearly to the parameters (order_ids, symbol, status). The role of 'status' parameter is ambiguous.

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 validates orders and lists specific checks (symbol validity, venue status, duplicate ClOrdIDs, client status). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like query_orders or send_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify preconditions, postconditions, or scenarios where validation is needed. The description implies pre-trade use but doesn't state exclusions or context.

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