get_order_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of indicating that this is a read-only operation; the verb 'Get' does imply that. However, it does not disclose details such as whether previous days' orders are returned, how the 'today' boundary is defined, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, the resource, the time scope, and the returned status detail.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, this description is complete. It states what the tool returns and the scope of the data, and no further invocation details are required.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add. This is the baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 the resource ('all orders placed today'), and adds the relevant detail that the current status is included. It distinguishes this from market-depth order books and from trade book/positions by the 'orders placed today' scope, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 'today' scope gives the agent a clear temporal context for deciding when to call this tool, and the description implies it is for viewing submitted orders rather than trades or positions. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools like get_trade_book or get_individual_order_details, but the context is clear enough for a basic routing decision.

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