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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the full state machine (pending_approval through declined) and what becomes available once executed (fill price, stop order id). It does not say how long a pending approval stays valid or what happens for an unknown/expired request_id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and states, then usage, then the labeled Input/Next cues — dense but efficient. The telegraphic 'Input:' / 'Next:' fragments are slightly terse, and enumerating return fields is somewhat redundant with the 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?

For a single-param read with annotations and an output schema, everything an agent needs to select and call it is present: prerequisite call, alternative, and next step. The only missing piece is failure behavior for an invalid or expired request_id, which is minor given the output schema covers returns.

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 the single parameter is already documented as coming from execute_previewed_order. The description's 'Input: request_id' restates the schema without adding format, lifetime, or lookup semantics, so the 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?

Names a specific resource (order request status) created by a specific sibling (execute_previewed_order) and enumerates the possible states. Explicitly distinguishes itself from get_my_open_orders, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

States the when ('use to follow an order that was waiting for a person's approval'), the when-not ('not for listing orders, use get_my_open_orders'), and the follow-up action ('get_my_positions once executed'). All three routing decisions are explicit.

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