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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds real value by disclosing the ownership verification step and enumerating what comes back (approval state, Bot Manager status, Lambda request id, broker order result, error details). This is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation, though it omits failure behavior when neither identifier resolves.

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 front-loaded sentences: the read-only lookup purpose comes first, then identifier guidance, then return values. It is dense but every clause carries information; the return-value list is a slight run-on but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: what identifiers to use, the ownership check, and an enumeration of return values. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain the origin of actionId and the singleTradeBotId/managerBotId single-trade-<actionId> convention. It does not state that all three parameters are optional, whether at least one is required, or which takes precedence if several are supplied.

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+resource: a read-only status lookup for a single trade created by place_trade. It explicitly names the originating tool and the identifiers involved, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_deployment_action_status or show_bot_activity.

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?

It tells the agent exactly what to pass (the actionId from the approval request, or the deterministic single-trade-<actionId> bot id), which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicit exclusions such as when to prefer this over other status tools or what to do when all three parameters are omitted.

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