Read a Peer Cash order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: the return envelope (state, amounts, fills, next actions), the transient ORDER_NOT_FOUND error semantics specifically after finalization, and the safety rule to retry the read rather than re-submitting a deposit. This idempotence- and consistency-revealing context enhances the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: the first states exactly what the tool returns; the second delivers a concrete, actionable error-handling rule. Nothing is superfluous, and the most critical safety guidance ('never the deposit transaction') is positioned at the end for emphasis.

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, read-only tool with no output schema and minimally semantic siblings, the description covers the essential ground: return contents and the primary failure mode with recovery steps. It could have expanded on the response structure or other error types, but the readOnly/idempotent annotations and the tool's simplicity mean little is lost.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the burden falls on the prose, and the phrase 'from its deposit id' does clarify the parameter's role as the lookup key. However, the description doesn't explain the parameter's format (beyond the schema regex) or edge cases like malformed ids. For a single, well-named string parameter, this is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one order'), enumerating exactly what's returned (state, amounts, fills, next actions) and the lookup key ('deposit id'). It implicitly separates itself from the plural sibling peer_cash_orders and the peer_cash_prepare* write tools by framing a single-order read, though it never names an alternative. This is clear, purposeful, and mostly distinguishes from siblings without explicit cross-referencing.

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?

The description offers no explicit when-to-use statement, nor does it name sibling tools for list/aggregate scenarios. Its value lies in the error-handling guidance (treat ORDER_NOT_FOUND after finalization as indexer lag and retry this read, never the deposit transaction), which imparts a strong usage rule for a specific condition. However, this is practical error-recovery context rather than tool-selection guidance, so it barely clears the implied-usage bar.

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