fidelity_place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: preview-by-default, automatic coercion to limit orders for penny stocks and extended hours, and the one-tick-past-last-price fallback. It stops short of stating irreversibility, authentication requirements, or error behavior for a tool that moves real money.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the safe default. Every sentence carries operational information — no restatement of the name or filler.

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?

For a high-risk trading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical surfaces: safety default, order-type coercion, and what the response contains ('the exact order... for the user to confirm'). Quantity limits, account selection, and failure modes are left unaddressed, keeping it short of complete.

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 only 43%, but the description adds genuine meaning for the trickiest interaction: when order_type becomes limit and how limit_price is derived if omitted. It leaves symbol, quantity, and account_number (the required 'Exact Fidelity account number') entirely to the schema, so compensation for the coverage gap is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Buy or sell a stock/ETF') that an agent can map directly to an order-placement action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling fidelity_stage_order or fidelity_batch_orders, which sound like they serve overlapping 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 dry-run workflow is spelled out well ('Dry run by default... Only set false after the user confirmed' lives in the schema), giving clear context for the safe path. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over fidelity_stage_order or fidelity_batch_orders, which are the most likely routing ambiguities.

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