get_order

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of what is read back (position and target), which implies a read-only inspection, but it never states that the call is side-effect free, what happens if the order is unknown or still in progress, or anything about permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the concrete check. Efficient, though the second sentence reads more like an instruction to the caller than a property of the tool, and 'move'/'order' terminology is not aligned.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it only gestures at return values ('position and target'). For a two-parameter tool with one undocumented id, more should be said about what the response contains and how to interpret an unfinished order.

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 50%: session_id is documented in the schema as 'Current session_id from get_state', while order_id has no description anywhere. The prose mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning about what an order_id identifies or how it relates to the 'move' being inspected.

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 gives a verb ('inspect') and an object ('the result of a move'), plus the fields to read (position and target). However, the tool name is get_order while the text speaks only of 'a move result', leaving the relationship between an order and a move result implicit, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as get_enemy_moves or get_changes.

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?

'verify arrival' hints at a post-move verification scenario, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other lookup tools, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should not be used.

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