execute_on_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses UNION logic, empty-target rejection, daemon-side order sizing independent of agent figures, idempotency behavior, per-account partial results, and always-on sanity checks. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 five-sentence description is tightly packed, with the core purpose front-loaded and each subsequent sentence covering a distinct behavioral aspect. There is no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant 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 complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most critical aspects: targeting, sizing, idempotency, partial success, and validation. However, it does not specify the exact response structure (beyond 'separate result per account') or prerequisites like account existence, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is only 30% (tags, symbol, account_ids have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for idempotency_key (duplicate prevention), account_ids/tags (UNION), and risk_pct (daemon-computed sizing), but leaves entry, stop_loss, order_type, side, and request_id to the schema. Side and order_type are self-explanatory via enums, yet prices and request_id remain underspecified.

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 first sentence, 'Birden çok hesapta pozisyon açar' (Opens positions on multiple accounts), states a specific verb and resource with an explicit multi-account scope. This clearly distinguishes it from single-account siblings like place_order or place_oco_order.

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 implies usage for multi-account execution and provides account-targeting rules (UNION semantics, rejection when both are empty), but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It gives operational context but no tool-selection guidance relative to siblings.

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