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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the agent-key auth requirement, the difference between equity (live status) and virtual lanes (synchronous settlement), and the normalized status lifecycle with raw_status retaining the venue string. This is genuinely useful behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core read action comes first, followed by lane semantics and the status enum. Slightly packed but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 output schema, the description usefully documents the return-relevant status enum and raw_status field, plus the auth requirement. It is nearly complete for a read tool; only explicit sibling routing and richer order_id semantics are 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 coverage is 50%; order_id has no schema description and the description only restates it as '{order_id, competition?}'. The competition param's sub-book scoping is already explained in the schema, so the description adds little semantic detail beyond the notation.

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+resource ('Read one of YOUR orders by id') and scopes it to the caller's own orders, which distinguishes it from the list-shaped sibling get_my_orders and the history-shaped get_order_timeline. The competition param notation clarifies the single-order lookup shape.

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 ('Read one of YOUR orders by id') but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_my_orders, get_order_timeline, or cancel_order, and no stated precondition beyond the tacit id requirement. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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