managed_trade_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that this is a polling operation, but says nothing about polling cadence, terminal statuses, whether status can be pending, or what happens if the requestId is unknown.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action and identifier are stated immediately.

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 and no description of returned statuses, terminal states, or relationship to the submission/wait tools, an agent cannot fully know how to interpret results or when to stop polling. Given the simple one-parameter read-only nature, annotations cover some context, but important status semantics are 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents requestId well. The description mentions 'by requestId' but adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('managed-custody trade') and names the key lookup parameter ('requestId'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as 'wait_for_trade' or the managed_purchase/managed_sell submission tools.

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 use case is implied by 'Poll the status' and 'by requestId', which suggests calling it after a managed purchase or sell submission. However, it does not state when to use this versus polling alternatives or waiting tools, nor any conditions for stopping.

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