order-overseas-stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Order' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this executes immediately or places an order, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, confirmation requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise at just one sentence that states the core purpose. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading more critical information about when to use this tool versus its sibling 'order-stock'.

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 financial transaction tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, success/failure conditions, or differentiation from the sibling 'order-stock' tool. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for safe and correct tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 required parameters, the description provides no information about what any parameter means or how to use them. The description doesn't explain what 'symbol' represents, what 'order_type' options exist, what 'market' refers to, or the units/format for 'price' and 'quantity'. For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, this is insufficient compensation for the schema coverage gap.

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 the action ('Order overseas stock') and specifies the resource ('from Korea Investment & Securities'), with the parenthetical '(buy/sell)' providing additional context about the transaction type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'order-stock' which appears to handle domestic orders, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'order-stock' that likely handles domestic orders, there's no indication of when to choose overseas vs domestic ordering. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other tools are mentioned.

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