create_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses real-money risk, Tier-1 unconditional rejection, Tier-2 preview unless confirm=true, and the confirm override. This is critical behavioral context beyond what the schema offers, especially for a high-stakes mutation tool.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence that immediately warns 'PLACES A REAL ORDER with real money' followed by precise guardrail details. No superfluous words; every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations – a high-complexity context. The description covers the most crucial aspects: risk, precedence of guardrails, and confirmation flow. It does not mention return format or failure modes, but the rich schema compensates for parameter understanding, making it sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in bypassing the Tier-2 preview, which goes beyond the schema's 'Set true to confirm a high-risk order'. Other parameters are not elaborated, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 explicitly states 'PLACES A REAL ORDER with real money', clearly identifying the action (placing an order) and the resource (order). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_order/cancel_order by emphasizing real-money execution and backend guardrails. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: to place real orders, and when confirmation is needed (Tier-2 high-risk orders require confirm=true to bypass preview). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like modify_order or cancel_order, so it misses the full when-not guidance.

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