Get conditional order detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the response—whether the trigger has fired and what each leg is doing—which goes beyond the structured data and clarifies what the caller will learn.

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?

Two crisp sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second provides a usage tip. No filler or redundant wording—every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple detail-fetch tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, this description conveys the essential return aspects (full detail, trigger state, leg actions). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter with provenance ('as returned by toss_get_conditional_orders or by toss_submit_prepared_order'), so the description does not need to repeat it. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra parameter nuance.

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 ('Gets') with a clear resource ('one conditional order') and adds detail about what 'in full' means—trigger status and leg behavior. This distinguishes it from the plural listing tool (toss_get_conditional_orders) and the regular order detail tool (toss_get_order).

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 second sentence gives explicit use context: 'Use it to check on an armed condition before modifying it.' This clearly states when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, which keeps it just below a 5.

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