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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real operational context on top: it is the authoritative record, the order can sit in an `unknown` state, and it is meant to be polled. That polling/status behavior is not derivable from the annotations, though no rate-limit guidance is given.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the polling instruction plus a concrete example at the end. Nothing is padded, though the example is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 an output schema available, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. Between them the agent knows what the tool returns, when to call it, how to poll it, and every parameter, so nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so order_id, include_deals and response_format are already documented in the schema, including the history:read scope requirement. The description only adds a sample invocation with include_deals=true, which is illustrative but not new semantics.

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 and resource ('the authoritative record of one order') and enumerates what it returns: the request, the broker's answer, fill volume and price. This clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_orders without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 an explicit usage trigger: poll after ORDER_UNRESOLVED until the order leaves `unknown`. That is concrete when-to-use guidance tied to a status value. It stops short of naming alternatives such as list_orders, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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