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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the atomic-amount and scale-field convention, which is useful behavioral context about the response data. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to note anything about error behavior, freshness, or authentication beyond what annotations imply.

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 only two short fragments and lacks a clear subject-verb structure ('Current status and customerState of an order'). While brief, it is under-specified rather than concise, and the amount/scale note is tacked on without context.

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 should explain the return shape and pagination or error behavior, but it only mentions two fields and an amount convention. It omits the relationship to create_swap, the meaning of customerState, and any indication of what happens if the order does not exist. For a read tool returning swap state, this is incomplete.

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 50%: sessionId is documented in the schema as coming from create_swap, while orderId is not described anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given partial schema coverage.

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 the tool returns order status and customerState, which is somewhat specific, and the title 'Read a swap order' anchors the resource. However, the phrasing is fragmentary ('Current status and customerState of an order') and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_swap or get_quote beyond the implicit read-only nature.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote or create_swap. The description does not state prerequisites (e.g., that a swap must have been created first) or exclude any scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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