megalaunch_get_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] detailed status', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed status' entails (e.g., format, included fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what 'detailed status' includes would improve completeness, but it's not severely lacking for this simple tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'orderId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for a 'specific token launch order', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed status of a specific token launch order', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'megalaunch_status' or 'megalaunch_list_orders', which likely provide related status information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 such as 'megalaunch_status' or 'megalaunch_list_orders'. It mentions 'specific token launch order', which implies usage for individual orders, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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