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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no indication of what the response looks like, whether it covers all values or only known ones, or what happens with an unrecognized machine value.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then the triggering instruction. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 optional enum parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only mild gap is not stating the shape or exhaustiveness of the returned explanations, which the absence of an output schema leaves unspecified.

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 enum's own description already explains the values and the omit-for-all behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the same five domains, adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 resource and scope: the plain meaning of status values across five named domains (bots, strategies, broker connections, orders, plans). An agent can tell this is a glossary/lookup tool, distinct from siblings like nyria_order_status, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those tools.

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?

"Call it before explaining a status to the trader" gives a clear trigger condition, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the positive usage rule is unambiguous.

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