Orderly CLI status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard version gate (v2.0.1+) and the causal fact that trading tools are disabled until that gate is satisfied, which the agent could not infer from the annotations. Return shape is not described, but that is the remaining gap rather than a contradiction.

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 short sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, then the blocking condition and version requirement. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world status tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what it does, why it matters, and the version threshold. It does not describe the shape of the diagnosis output (no output schema exists), which is a minor omission for a tool whose whole value is the report content.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and target ('why the Orderly CLI is unavailable') plus the remediation angle, so an agent knows this is a diagnostic/status tool rather than a trading action. It is slightly indirect because the tool is titled 'status' but described as a diagnostic report, though the two readings converge.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'The trading tools are disabled until a compatible orderly CLI (v2.0.1+) is found' tells the agent this is the tool to reach for when trading tools are blocked, and gives the version threshold to check. There is no explicit 'call this when X fails' instruction or exclusion, and no siblings exist to disambiguate against.

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