Grid Order Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond those by specifying what is returned—rule parameters, status, embedded grid_sub_orders, and grid_order_history—and by documenting cursor-based pagination behavior via history_id and limit. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the 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 and every clause contributes meaning. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the included detail types and pagination behavior without 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return value shapes. It covers the tool's scope, included embedded entities, and pagination mechanism. This is sufficiently complete for a read-only detail-retrieval tool with only three inputs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'history_id cursor + limit paging' reinforces the schema's existing parameter descriptions but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. No extra parameter meaning is introduced.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'Full detail for one grid order,' immediately clarifying this is a single-order retrieval tool. It enumerates distinct contents (rule parameters, status, embedded child orders, lifecycle history), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like grid_list or grid_trigger_history.

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 phrase 'Full detail for one grid order' clearly signals when this tool is appropriate: when a single order's complete details are needed rather than a list or summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with list-oriented sibling tools is strongly implied.

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