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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a lookup operation and specifies the returned data categories, but does not disclose much beyond that. This is adequate but not rich with extra behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists the useful status enum and return contents. Every element earns its place, with 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers how to call the tool and what to expect back. The only minor gap is not describing behavior for unknown or invalid order hashes, which is not critical given the clarity provided.

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%: the orderHash parameter is already fully documented as an EIP-712 order hash (0x-hex, 32 bytes). The description's 'by hash' phrase adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description is specific and informative: 'Look up an Epsilon order by hash' names the verb, resource, and key identifier, then lists what the tool returns (status, parameters, fills). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orders or get_orderbook.

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 description gives a clear context for use: when the agent has an order hash and needs status, parameters, or fills. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the hash-based lookup scope makes the intended usage evident.

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