Toss Get Conditional Orders

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: the pagination contract (preserve nextCursor/hasNext) and the non-obvious quirk that OPEN status causes limit/cursor to be ignored. Output shape is not described, but no output schema exists and the pagination note covers the main unknown.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the pagination contract. The accountSeq sentence duplicates the schema field description verbatim, which is mild waste, but nothing else is padded.

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?

With five parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers the riskiest behaviors (pagination, OPEN-status quirk, account prerequisite) but leaves the CLOSED path, the status semantics, and the returned item shape undescribed. Adequate to call correctly, not complete enough to predict results.

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 20%, so the description must carry more weight; it does clarify that limit/cursor are inert under OPEN status and that cursor is tied to nextCursor, which is useful. However, the status enum values (OPEN vs CLOSED) and the symbol filter are left unexplained, and the accountSeq sentence is a verbatim restatement of the schema description rather than added meaning.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ("List conditional-orders"), and the plural form distinguishes it from the singular sibling toss_get_conditional_order. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation relies on naming conventions rather than an explicit statement.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisite guidance ("call toss_get_accounts first" when accountSeq is required) and an ambiguity policy ("if multiple accounts are ambiguous, ask the user"), which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of stating when to use this tool versus toss_get_orders for regular orders or toss_get_conditional_order for a single order.

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