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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: addresses are redacted and returned states can lag behind reality. It stops short of covering pagination, result limits, or what happens on a miss, so it is not a full 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 recovery scenario, then the keys, then the caveats and next step. Very dense and largely waste-free, though the telegraphic 'Next: get_swap_status (live state, payable)' phrasing is compact at the cost of a little readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. The description covers trigger conditions, both lookup keys, read-only semantics, redaction and staleness, and the follow-up tool. The only real hole is the undocumented detail enum, which leaves the agent guessing between lean and full.

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 67% and the description largely restates what the schema already says about idempotencyKey (default q_<quoteId>) and sessionId. The third parameter, detail (enum lean/full), is never explained in either place, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('find orders') and pins the exact scenario it exists for: recovering orders when the orderId was lost after a new chat, crash, or unknown create outcome. It also distinguishes itself from the live-state sibling by naming get_swap_status as the next step, so an agent can separate the two 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the orderId is lost') with the failure scenarios enumerated, plus the two alternative lookup paths (idempotencyKey or sessionId) and the follow-up tool (get_swap_status for live/payable state). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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