get_order_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the read-only nature through 'Get' and 'Returns', lists the possible order_state values, and names the returned fields. It does not cover error behavior or authentication, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and return values, followed by a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it names all relevant return fields, lists every possible order_state value, and states when to use the tool. Missing not-found behavior is a minor gap for such a simple retrieval operation.

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% with a description for order_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by its order_id' and contextualizes the parameter as part of a state lookup, but it does not elaborate on ID format, origin, or edge cases.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the current state of an order'), and enumerates the exact return fields and order_state values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_open_orders or cancel_order without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this to check if an order was filled, partially filled, or cancelled.' This provides a clear use case, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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