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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and an output schema exists, so safety and return shape are covered elsewhere. The description adds only the fact that results are 'resting' (open/unfilled) orders carrying order ids — useful, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether empty results are possible.

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 short line plus an example query; nothing is wasted and the resource definition is front-loaded. The quoted user-question framing is slightly informal for a tool description but functions as a compact usage cue.

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-address read with rich annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs. The only genuine gap is that the scope boundary against sibling reads like get_order and get_fills is left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage including the 0x address pattern, the schema fully documents the input. The '0x…' illustration in the description merely echoes it, so baseline 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 resource and scope: 'an account's resting orders, with their order ids'. That clearly separates it from get_order (singular lookup) and get_fills (executed trades). It is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource sentence, which keeps it just below the top band, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

The embedded question 'Which orders does 0x… have open?' implies the triggering scenario, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it never states when not to use it, nor names get_order or get_fills as alternatives for single-order or historical-fill queries.

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