list_pending_live_orders

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions 'awaiting human approval' but does not specify if the tool is read-only, what happens if no orders exist, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices helpfulness; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. Yet it lacks details about the structure of returned results or any filtering capabilities, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not add any parameter semantics or return value details. Per rules, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3, which is appropriate here.

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 that the tool lists prepared live orders awaiting human approval. It specifies the resource (live orders) and the state (pending approval), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_pending_live_order or execute_delivery_buy_after_validation. However, it could be more precise by including the verb 'list' and clarifying 'prepared'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are other list tools like fetch_order_history and fetch_paper_trades, but no contextual hints to help the agent decide which one to invoke.

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