check_order

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the operation non-mutating, enumerates what does not happen (no order placed, no funds reserved), and describes the response shape for both pass (would-be lock prices) and reject (structured rejects, possible account block).

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 sentences, zero filler, with the dry-run nature and non-mutation guarantee front-loaded before the result detail. Every clause contributes either scope or outcome information.

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 7-parameter validation tool with a full output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the no-side-effects guarantee and the pass/reject result semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the order concept and the implication that a limit price drives lock-price estimates. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('run a non-mutating pre-trade dry-run for an order') plus the exact output content (pass/fail, lock prices, structured rejects). The closing clause 'no order is placed, no funds are reserved' implicitly separates it from the submit/send siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Clearly frames the context of use: validate an order before actually sending it, with the explicit exclusion that nothing is submitted. It never names the alternative tools (submit_order, send_live_order, send_paper_order) an agent should pick when it does want execution, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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