order_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds the concrete outcome set (resting, partially filled, filled, gone), telling the agent what the call reports. It also conveys that this is a point-in-time lifecycle check. No contradiction with 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 one compact sentence that front-loads the essential information, the possible statuses, with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output semantics.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-value semantics and the context for use. It doesn't spell out the exact response shape or field names, but that is not required for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, order_id, which is self-evident, and the description's 'one Polymarket order' reinforces that the ID identifies the order to inspect. The schema provides no description, but with a single standard ID field little additional semantic burden falls on the tool description.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving the status of a single Polymarket order and lists the possible states, so an agent knows what it does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_order, but naming 'one Polymarket order' and the lifecycle context distinguishes it from list-oriented tools like open_orders.

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?

It explicitly frames usage as 'after place_order,' giving the temporal context for when to call it. It doesn't state when not to use alternatives such as check_order or open_orders, but the single-order lifecycle focus makes the intended use clear.

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