ellorder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions, input validation, or what happens if the point has infinite order. The description is opaque beyond the basic operation.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to provide sufficient guidance, which slightly reduces the score from 5.

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 mathematical complexity of elliptic curve order computation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the order exists only for torsion points, does not indicate the return type (an integer), and does not explain potential failure modes. The presence of an output schema may partially compensate, but the description itself lacks essential context.

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 coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('Elliptic curve structure.' and 'Point on the curve.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it computes the order of a point on an elliptic curve. The verb 'compute' and the specific resource 'order of a point' are precise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like elladd, ellmul, and elltors which perform different operations on elliptic curves.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. For example, it does not indicate that the curve must be defined over a field where point multiplication is defined, or that the point must be a torsion point for the order to be finite.

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