Look up an eToro order

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: sample statuses (WaitingForMarket, Filled) and the 404 lag for just-placed orders. That timing caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then lookup keys, then the operational caveat. No filler and every clause carries 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?

For a two-param read tool with no output schema and no enum coverage, the description supplies purpose, both parameter roles, example statuses, and a timing quirk. It could say more about the returned structure, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably well: it identifies both lookup keys, clarifies that orderId originates from order placement, and enforces 'provide exactly one'. It omits format/syntax detail (e.g., referenceId string shape), but the semantics are otherwise clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Status and execution details of one order', and pins the lookup keys to orderId or referenceId. This clearly separates it from history/action siblings, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Explains where orderId comes from ('returned when an order is placed') and that exactly one identifier must be supplied, which implies usage. But it offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings like get_action_status or get_trade_history.

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