place_iceberg_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the order type and splitting concept, but does not disclose execution behavior, order lifecycle, potential failures, required approvals, or side effects. The description is purely definitional and lacks transparency about what invoking this tool actually does beyond the schema parameters.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the main concept. While it is minimal, it earns a score above 3 because it conveys the essential idea without waste, though it could benefit from a bit more structure or context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 7 required, multiple enums, no output schema) and the existence of many sibling order-related tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how iceberg orders differ in execution, what parameters are critical, what the response contains, or any preconditions. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of use.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the order type. The schema itself explains parameters like disclosed_quantity and price, so no information gap exists, but the description does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool's function as placing an iceberg order and explains the key concept ('large order split into smaller disclosed quantities'). This distinguishes it from sibling order types like bracket or cover orders, though it could be more explicit about the specific mechanics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use an iceberg order versus alternatives such as create_order, place_bracket_order, or place_cover_order. The description implies it is for large orders but does not state explicit conditions, exclusions, or trade-offs.

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