Agent: execute preapproved order

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

Describes preapproval guard conditions and failure modes from domain invariants, going beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It explains behavior details that help the agent understand execution risks.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences; first states purpose, second lists constraints and failure details. 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?

Lacks output schema and does not mention return values or success indications. Given the absence of output schema and the tool's complexity (execution with side effects), the description should ideally describe typical outcomes beyond failure modes.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Robo-advisor executes a market order,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like agent_propose_rebalance and agent_fetch_market_signal, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage with preapproval guard and lists constraints, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools. The context of 'subject to AgentPreapproval guard' provides some guidance.

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