place_groww_gtd_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'valid until specified date', which conveys the order's validity period, but it does not disclose whether the order is immediately submitted, any authentication or margin requirements, reversibility, or potential financial impact. For a trade execution tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence of 11 words, immediately stating the action and key qualifier. There is no unnecessary information, and the structure is appropriately front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Despite being a complex tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention required prerequisites (e.g., authenticated broker), whether the order is immediately active, or how it interacts with the broker's GTD rules. The schema covers parameter details, but the description fails to provide situational context that the schema cannot convey.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including enums for order_type, exchange, product, etc. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only echoes the concept of validity_date. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: 'Place Good Till Date (GTD) order on Groww - valid until specified date'. It uses a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('GTD order on Groww'), and the 'valid until specified date' clarifies the unique GTD behavior, distinguishing it from sibling order types like bracket, cover, or AMO.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The name and description imply this is for GTD orders specifically on Groww, but there is no direct statement about when to prefer this over other order placement tools (e.g., create_order, place_amo) or any exclusions. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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