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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: the 'owned' scoping constraint (you can only query your own orders) and the 'authoritative' nature of the result versus any cached status. It also enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about error behavior or auth requirements beyond ownership.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup key before the return payload. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough: how the order is identified, whose orders are eligible, and what the response contains. Only edge cases (unknown hash, cross-chain ambiguity) are left unaddressed.

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 100% and the single orderHash parameter is documented there with its 0x format. The description adds only that the hash identifies the order, which is baseline context rather than new 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?

States a specific verb (Track) and resource (owned Fusion+ cross-chain order) identified by orderHash, and enumerates the returned data. No sibling tool covers Fusion order status, so the distinction is clear by resource specificity even though no alternative is named.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to check settlement/refund status of an owned Fusion+ order after it is placed. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the order isn't found, and no named alternative for non-owned or non-Fusion orders.

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