Read Strata order-control status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description aligns with these, but adds no additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the 'durable result' includes. It does add the use-case of timeout recovery, but that is more about usage than behavior. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, with zero wasted words.

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 the complexity of the tool (3 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions), a single sentence is insufficient. It lacks details on what the 'durable result' looks like, how the parameters are used, and any edge cases. The description is too minimal for an agent to use the tool 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 has three required parameters (marketId, orderControlId, idempotencyKey) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no information about these parameters, their purpose, or how they relate to the 'externally signed order submission'. This is a critical gap, as the agent cannot know what identifiers to supply or why they are needed.

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 the tool's function: recovering the durable result for an externally signed order submission after a timeout or restart. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like strata_order_submit or strata_order_prepare, which handle the submission process itself.

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 provides a specific trigger context: after a timeout or restart. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for most scenarios, but a bit more elaboration on how it differs from other order status reads would earn a 5.

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