Propose an order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the order is only signed and sent 'when allowed' after a rules check, and the outcome is reported via a decision — telling the agent this is not an unconditional submission. It omits any mention of the approval flow that validForSeconds hints at.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what happens to it, and the type-specific pricing rule. The core action is front-loaded and there is no 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 nine-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the asynchronous decision outcome, and the key pricing branch. The remaining gap is the approval/expiry workflow implied by validForSeconds and list_approvals, which an agent would have to infer from schema descriptions and siblings.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the price/market-order distinction and symbol formats. The description's only net addition is the conditional rule that a limit order requires a price while a market order is priced at the engine's mark, which is marginal over what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Propose an order on a trading account') and goes further to explain the propose/check/sign/send pipeline, which distinguishes it from a raw order-submission tool and from siblings like cancel_order or get_decision. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance between order types ('A limit order needs a price; a market order is priced at the engine's mark') and implies the follow-up decision. It does not explicitly route the agent to get_decision or wait_for_decision after proposing, nor mention any exclusions, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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