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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context by enumerating the possible state outcomes (filed, running, done with transaction, failed/refused with reason, skipped) and the required X-Agent-Key authentication. This goes beyond structured annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or idempotency explicitly.

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 compact and front-loads the tool's purpose and return states. The second sentence on authentication is somewhat dense but still earns its place by providing necessary access details.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers output states and authentication. However, it omits any explanation of the order_id parameter, leaving a key invocation detail unaddressed.

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%, and the description never mentions the order_id parameter or what it represents. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states it returns the state of one order filed by agent_buy or agent_sell, enumerating possible states. It distinguishes from the sibling action tools but does not explicitly contrast with agent_status, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool is used to check an order's status and states a prerequisite (needs the member's agent key). However, it does not say when to use this versus alternatives like agent_status, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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