generate_order_plan

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 one important behavior: it cannot send orders to a broker, so it is a non-executing planning tool. However, it does not state side effects, whether it reads portfolio state, or how it behaves when constraints (e.g., target sum to 1.0) are violated, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words; the core action and the key broker limitation are front-loaded. It is an appropriate length for the information it conveys.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the return shape, how fees influence the plan, or how targets and current values relate, so an agent would be uncertain about invocation expectations.

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 only 33% (targets and current_values), yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The fee parameters (fixed_fee_eur, max_fee_ratio, variable_fee_pct) and cash_eur are left entirely to their names and defaults, which is insufficient compensation for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and object ('suggested manual orders'), making the tool's core function clear. It also adds a critical boundary ('cannot send orders to any broker'), but it doesn't name or differentiate against sibling tools like build_investment_plan or rebalance_portfolio, so it stops short of strong differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as allocate_cash, rebalance_portfolio, or build_investment_plan. The only implicit signal is that it is for planning rather than execution, but no alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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