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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required api:stock_trade scope and confirmation that it never mutates the order. The enumerated status values also set expectations for return semantics.

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-loads purpose, then inputs, returns, and safety in four tight sentences with no wasted preamble. The final 'Read only' clause mildly restates the readOnlyHint annotation, slightly preferring redundancy for reader safety.

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, the description explicitly names the returned fields (order_id, status, filled_units, avg_fill_price) and the status enum, and adds the auth scope. For a two-param read-only status lookup, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the provenance of order_id (from confirm_stock_order) which is useful, but leaves account_id's meaning under-specified ('your own linked brokerage' only implies it). Partial compensation for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the current status of ONE order) plus scope ('at YOUR own linked brokerage'), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling get_open_orders. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Gives a concrete operational link: 'Pass the account_id and the order_id that confirm_stock_order returned', which tells the agent the upstream tool that produces its inputs. It lacks an explicit exclusion against alternatives like get_open_orders, but the workflow context is clear.

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