hl_order_status_by_cloid

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only specifies the input format and implies a status query, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention required permissions, or describe error behavior or response contents beyond the hint '(orderStatus)'.

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 extremely brief with no filler content, efficiently front-loading the core purpose. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces structural polish, though it remains appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is a simple lookup with two parameters and an output schema exists, but the description omits the meaning of `user`, when to use this tool versus siblings, and any behavioral notes. Despite being a simple query, the lack of usage context and partial parameter coverage makes it incomplete for an agent.

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 two required parameters with zero description coverage, and the description only adds meaning for cloid_hex by specifying its format (0x + 32 hex chars). The `user` parameter is not described at all, so the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 tool as retrieving order status by client order ID (cloid), with a specific format for the ID. It distinguishes from sibling tool hl_order_status_by_oid by using client order ID rather than exchange order ID, though the lack of an explicit verb makes it slightly less direct than ideal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_order_status_by_oid or hl_historical_orders. The distinction between client order ID and order ID is implicit in the name, but not explicitly stated, and no use-case scenarios or exclusions are given.

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