Ordres en cours

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real value by clarifying the '(working)' qualifier and enumerating returned fields, but omits pagination, ordering, and whether results are limited when no filter is supplied. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the returned fields and the filter options. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 parameterless-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to narrow it, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the behavior with no filters (full dump? capped?) is left unstated.

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 100%, so both filters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that filtering happens via connectionId/accountId and adds no syntax, formatting, or mutual-exclusivity detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Liste les ordres actifs') and scopes it to working orders only, which implicitly separates it from quantower_get_orders_history. It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name the sibling explicitly, keeping it shy of a 5.

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 tells the agent the result can be narrowed by connectionId or accountId, which implies the usage context (scoped lookups). However it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as quantower_get_orders_history or quantower_get_trades, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied, not guided.

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