order_status_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'read-only' and vaguely mentions 'caveats', but fails to detail what caveats exist, data freshness, pagination, or return format, leaving significant uncertainty.

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 a single sentence, which is compact, but it omits critical details like parameter meaning and output structure, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, parameter roles, and behavioral specifics needed for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not mention any of the 6 parameters (to, from, limit, cursor, symbol, accountSeq), providing no guidance on their purpose or usage.

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 provides a 'read-only order reconciliation summary for open and recently closed orders, state counts, and replace/modify caveats', distinguishing it from sibling tools like orders_open, orders_closed, and order_detail by focusing on a summary view.

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?

The description implies use for high-level summary via 'reconciliation summary', but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., orders_open for individual open orders) or prerequisites.

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