get_demo_orders

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the authentication requirement (no credentials) and that it returns open orders from the demo account. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as real-time nature, response format, or rate limits, though the tool is simple and read-only.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy to parse.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, relative to whom (demo account), and authentication requirement. It is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity, but could mention the read-only nature explicitly.

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 the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the resource and state, which is adequate given the absence of parameters.

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 verb (Get), resource (public demo account's open orders), and scope (open orders). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_open_orders' by specifying 'public demo account', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly notes that no credentials are needed, which implies it is used for unauthenticated access. However, it does not directly contrast with the sibling tool 'get_open_orders' or state when not to use it, but provides sufficient context for typical usage.

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