validate_trading_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is not performed (market/risk checks) and lists some parameter values. It does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, auth requirements, or output behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and exclusions, the second provides parameter values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at return type or effects (e.g., boolean, error). It does not. It also partially covers parameters (missing symbol). With many sibling tools, more context on when to use this specific tool would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaning for two of three parameters ('side: BUY|SELL, product_type: INTRADAY|DELIVERY') beyond the schema's raw type information. However, it omits description for 'symbol', and the schema has no enums, so the description provides useful but incomplete guidance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check config permissions for a prospective order'. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting 'no market/risk checks', setting it apart from siblings like validate_trade_against_risk_rules. The verb 'check' and resource 'config permissions' are specific.

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 implies usage for permission checks before orders, and the exclusion of market/risk checks suggests alternatives when those are needed. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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