Read a BrainChain order

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

Read-only and open-world are already in annotations, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: this is a poll endpoint with a backoff field and a defined set of terminal states, including the nuance that a non-accepted result still has a refund arriving after the dispute window. That timing detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then the polling/termination rules. Every clause earns its place: no restatement of the name, no filler, and the most actionable instruction (when to stop) is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden and does so by naming the payload components in order. Combined with the terminal-state list and backoff field, an agent has everything needed to drive the poll loop correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the pattern and the reference to brainchain_post_task. The description reinforces the provenance of the order id and ties it to the sibling tool, adding modest value beyond the structured field rather than merely restating it.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (order) with explicit provenance ('from brainchain_post_task'), and it enumerates exactly what fields are returned: payment, status, grade, result text, refund transaction. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sole sibling, which creates orders rather than reading 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?

Explicitly states the termination condition ('Stop calling when `done` is true') and enumerates the states that count as done, plus the alternative behavior ('otherwise wait `retryAfterSeconds`'). The polling contract is fully specified, so an agent knows both when to keep calling and when to stop.

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