open_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it lists active orders but does not mention if it is read-only, what authentication is needed, or any side effects. It adds unit contract info but lacks broader transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. No extraneous information; every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and one data format detail. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of orders with fields, pagination) and completeness for a simple listing tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds value by clarifying the unit contract (filled_quantity in SHARES, filled_cash in US$). This compensates for the lack of parameter info.

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 active (live) orders. The verb 'lists' and specific resource 'active orders' make the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'order_status' or 'trade_history', but the name and description are sufficient.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'order_status' (for a single order) or 'trade_history' (for past trades). The description mentions unit contract consistency with 'order_status', but this is more about data format than usage context.

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