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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful context: requests go through the native public Uniswap HTTP contract and the caller's OpenAny gateway credentials, with charges/authorization decided by the gateway. That clarifies the auth and billing model but says nothing about pagination behavior, result shape, or what an unfiltered query returns.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences are short and substantive. "Uses the native public Uniswap HTTP contract" is arguably boilerplate for this API family, but nothing is padded or redundant at length.

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?

This is an 11-parameter, zero-required query tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry a lot — and it explains only the gateway/charge model. It leaves open whether filters can be combined freely, whether a query without orderId/orderIds is valid, and how pagination behaves, which is a meaningful gap for a tool this configurable.

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% and every parameter is documented in-schema, including the orderId/orderIds mutual-exclusion rule, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no filtering semantics, sort syntax, or guidance on combining the swapper/filler/orderStatus/orderType filters.

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 verb and resource ("Get gasless order status"), but the name and schema show this is a filtered list/query of UniswapX orders (sort, limit, cursor, swapper, orderType, orderStatus), not a single order status lookup. It never distinguishes itself from siblings such as uniswap_post_v1_order or uniswap_get_v1_swaps, so an agent must open the schema to learn the real scope.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of how this relates to the order-creation tool it obviously pairs with. An agent is left to infer that this is the read-side counterpart of uniswap_post_v1_order and that at least one of orderId/orderIds must be supplied.

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