Toss Get Conditional Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the account discovery prerequisite and the rule to ask the user when multiple accounts are ambiguous. It does not describe return format, but no output schema exists and the tool is a simple read.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by prerequisite and ambiguity handling. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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 simple read-only fetch with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisite and ambiguity handling. It could be more complete by explaining where conditionalOrderId comes from (e.g., toss_get_conditional_orders), but otherwise sufficient.

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 50%: accountSeq has a description (which merely duplicates the main description), while conditionalOrderId has no description in schema or description. The description adds no meaning for conditionalOrderId, such as where to obtain the identifier. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter, so it earns a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one conditional-orders by identifier.' The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool toss_get_conditional_orders, though that sibling is not named explicitly. Minor grammar issue ('one conditional-orders') does not impede understanding.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: call toss_get_accounts first when accountSeq is required, and provides ambiguity handling by telling the agent to ask the user. This is actionable context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus toss_get_conditional_orders, leaving that inference to the agent.

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