nex_get_ip_order_status

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

The description extensively enumerates possible order states, including failure modes and the critical indeterminate state with explicit instructions to not retry and to direct the user to order history. This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, providing valuable behavioral context for the agent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists all possible states. While the state list is long, every item adds meaningful information and there is no fluff. It is well-structured but slightly verbose due to the enum-like list.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so by listing all possible states. However, it does not specify the exact response format (e.g., whether it's a plain string or a structured object), though the states cover the expected outcomes. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, this is fairly complete.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (intentId) with a description claiming 100% coverage. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond confirming that it is the order's intentId. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool's function: 'Check the outcome of a confirmed IP order.' This is a specific verb + resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like nex_quote_ip_order (quotes) and nex_confirm_ip_order (confirms). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage after confirmation (check the outcome of a confirmed IP order) and provides a specific 'do NOT retry' instruction for the indeterminate state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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