order_status

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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears the transparency burden. It details that 'filled_quantity' is always in shares, 'filled_cash' only present on cash_amount orders, and explains the 'quantity_is_estimate' flag's implications. Fully discloses output format and edge cases.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding distinct value. Front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields, units, and special cases. It addresses usage context relative to siblings and provides necessary warnings. Complete for a status-check 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?

Only parameter is 'order_id', which is self-explanatory. Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds no further details about the parameter itself. However, the parameter's purpose is obvious from context, so score is adequate.

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 it returns status (state, filled quantity, average price) for a specific order by order_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'positions' by noting eventual consistency, and from 'wait_for_fill' by being a status check rather than a wait action.

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?

Explicitly advises using after 'buy'/'sell' to confirm fill, contrasts with 'positions' which lags, and warns not to use 'quantity_is_estimate' for exit sizing. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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