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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of state categories (funding, delivery/dispute, delayed seller-release), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what the return looks like or any rate limits/auth, so with annotations doing heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it lists the state categories efficiently. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details needn't be explained. The description covers what state is read and implies the tool is for owned orders. For a read-only status check with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete, though a hint about prerequisites (e.g., order must be owned/funded) or sibling differentiation would make it fully complete.

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 includes an example format (nxtd_...), so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds nothing beyond implying the order_id is for an owned Trade order. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (settlement status for a Trade order), and specifies the exact state categories: funding, delivery/dispute, and delayed seller-release. It's clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling status tools like nexus_trade_my_orders or nexus_trade_seller_connect_status, which limits sibling disambiguation.

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 implies usage by mentioning the state categories, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for using this vs other trade status tools. The agent must infer from context alone.

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