Look up an eToro order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance context ('orderId returned when an order is placed') but says nothing about behavior on a missing order, pagination, or rate limits, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the return content, followed by a terse clause on key selection and the exactly-one constraint. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a summary level and how to identify the order. It does not sketch the shape of 'status and execution details' or error behavior, which is the only real gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains what orderId is (returned when an order is placed), that referenceId is an alternative identifier, and that exactly one must be supplied. It omits type/format constraints (positive integer, string length), keeping it short of a 5.

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 names the lookup keys, so the agent knows it fetches a single order rather than a list. The resource is distinct from every sibling (portfolio, pnl, balances, rates, watchlists), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives useful invocation guidance — use either orderId or referenceId and 'Provide exactly one' — which tells the agent how to call it. However, it says nothing about when this tool is appropriate versus other order- or history-related siblings such as etoro_get_trade_history, so usage context is only implied.

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