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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by enumerating the full outcome space (pending, executed, failed, rejected, cancelled, expired, uncertain) and noting that executed results may carry a fill or a resting order_id. The 'uncertain' state plus its recovery hint is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure that annotations cannot convey.

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?

One sentence with the primary answer front-loaded and the status enumeration in a single parenthetical; nothing is wasted. The fragmentary grammar and dense parentheses are slightly rough but do not impede comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing every status and what executed means. The only gap is deeper guidance on the 'uncertain' state (retry timing, whether it is terminal), which is left to the referenced get_live_account tool.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'the proposal_id returned by propose_live_order'. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 the resource (a live proposal) and the question it answers (what happened to it), then enumerates the possible outcomes including executed with fill or resting order_id. It is clearly a single-proposal status lookup, distinct from list_live_proposals by the singular resource and the proposal_id-driven schema, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 context is clear: you call it to learn the fate of a proposal, and the schema ties proposal_id back to propose_live_order. It also names a follow-up route for the 'uncertain' case (check get_live_account). It does not explicitly exclude list_live_proposals or state when to prefer bulk listing, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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