managed_trade_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not disclose whether the trade settles asynchronously, what terminal states exist, whether the request expires, or whether calling it has side effects. Only the safe-read implication of 'Poll status' is conveyed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing essential displaced.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe return shape (statuses, terminal vs pending) and polling behavior. It leaves the agent unable to know what a response means or when to stop polling.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema text ('Request ID returned from purchase/sell submission') is more informative than the description's bare 'by requestId'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (Poll), a specific resource (managed-custody trade), and the lookup key (requestId). It clearly differs from the state-changing siblings managed_purchase/managed_sell, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

'Poll' hints at repeated invocation, but there is no guidance on when to call it, how often to poll, or that it should be used after managed_purchase/managed_sell to await completion. The agent must infer the entire lifecycle on its own.

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