get_today_filled_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what 'filled today' means (e.g., timezone, definition of 'filled'). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from additional context given the lack of annotations.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple but potentially ambiguous scope ('filled today'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'filled' entails, timezone considerations, or response format, leaving gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a financial trading context with many sibling tools.

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 the schema fully documents the 'limit' and 'page' parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact with 'today' filtering or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('orders filled today'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_account_orders' or 'get_order' which might have different scopes, but it's specific enough to understand what data it retrieves.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_orders' or 'get_order'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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