Read a Peer Cash order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the possibility of transient ORDER_NOT_FOUND after finalization and the recommendation to retry only this read, not the deposit transaction. This explains the tool's behavior under a specific edge case.

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, no filler. The first sentence is a clear, front-loaded statement of the tool's action and inputs. The second sentence adds a practical operational tip. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single ID parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it returns and a key caveat. It lacks an explicit note about where the deposit id comes from, but the 'next actions' mention gives useful context. Overall, complete enough for an agent to use it.

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 compensate. The description says 'from its deposit id,' clearly indicating the parameter is the lookup key. However, it does not explain the format or origin of the deposit id (e.g., from a previous prepare/finalize step), which would be helpful. Minimal but sufficient semantics.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one order state, amounts, fills, and next actions') plus the input ('deposit id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like peer_cash_orders (which likely lists orders) and other peer_cash operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (fetching a single order by deposit id) and includes a specific operational guideline about retrying after ORDER_NOT_FOUND due to indexer lag, along with an exclusion ('never the deposit transaction'). It does not explicitly name alternatives but implicitly distinguishes from peer_cash_orders.

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