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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return-field list, which is genuine context beyond the annotations since there is no output schema. It says nothing about not-found behavior or error responses for a bad order_id, leaving a gap for a lookup tool.

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, zero filler, with the action and id provenance front-loaded before the return-field list. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 complete annotations, the definition covers source of the id, the action, and the returned fields — enough to call it correctly. The only meaningful omission is behavior on an invalid or already-expired order_id.

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 description's parameter guidance is essentially a verbatim repeat of the schema's own order_id description. No length constraints, format notes, or validity rules are added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Look up an order by the order_id") and then enumerates what is returned — status, quantity, filled quantity, fill price, broker, account type. That field list tells an agent exactly what it gets, distinguishing this from nyria_recent_orders (which lists many orders) and nyria_positions.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the order_id comes from (nyria_send_alert or nyria_recent_orders), which is real routing guidance to siblings. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what happens with an invalid/unknown id, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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