get_close_order_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: HTTP 404 if not found, rate limit sharing a 60req/60s pool with get_order, and the presence of specific fields (positionsToClose, positionExecutions). This exceeds the minimum expected from annotations.

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 two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose in the first sentence. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, status code reference, field details, error scenario, and rate limiting. It is complete without relying on output schema documentation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter order_id, which is adequately described as 'Close-order id returned by close_position.' The description mainly restates this without adding extra semantic meaning, so baseline 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 'Look up a close order's status by its order id,' specifying a specific action (look up), resource (close order's status), and method (by order id). It distinguishes from siblings like get_order by targeting close orders specifically.

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 gives context by referencing get_order's status codes and mentioning fields like positionsToClose and positionExecutions. It implies usage for close orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_order.

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