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

Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so meaningfully by stating 'Advisory only — does not place orders,' a critical non-effect that agents must know before invocation. It also implies plan construction rather than execution, but it does not disclose details like error behavior or whether any state is persisted. The core behavioral trait is nevertheless clearly communicated.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the safety-relevant advisory-only clarification is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves important context missing: the meaning of use_latest, the expected format of alert_json, and selection guidance among sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but the invocation details are insufficiently specified for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. The alert_json parameter is partially inferable from 'from alert', but use_latest is completely unexplained — its behavior, default implications, and relationship to alert_json are absent. The description names plan components but does not map them to parameters, leaving a real semantic gap for the agent.

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 action ('Build Robinhood execution plan from alert') and scope, naming the inputs it consumes (delta band, spread gate, budget, bracket, MCP steps). It is distinct enough from siblings like format_bracket_plan, though it does not explicitly reference a sibling to differentiate itself, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 the tool is for building an advisory execution plan from an alert and explicitly notes it does not place orders. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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