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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes the useful detail that only pending wakeups are affected, but says nothing about what happens on an already-fired wakeup, whether the cancel is recoverable, or whether the call errors versus silently succeeds.

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 tight sentence with the scope restriction front-loaded after the action. Nothing is wasted and no information is 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?

Annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile, the schema fully documents all three parameters, and no output schema exists, so the description's remaining burden is light. It covers what is cancelled and the precondition; only the error behavior on an already-fired wakeup is left unstated, a minor 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 100% and each parameter already documents its provenance (wakeup_id from wakeup_schedule or wakeup_list, instance_id from buy or list_utilities, passport_token conditional usage). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (cancel) and resource (wake-up call) and adds a meaningful precondition: only calls that 'have not fired yet (scheduled or retrying).' Siblings wakeup_schedule and wakeup_list are not named, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring from the resource name, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 state restriction 'has not fired yet (scheduled or retrying)' implies when the call is applicable, which is more than nothing. However, it never names an alternative path (e.g., wakeup_list to inspect state first) or states what to do if the wakeup already fired, leaving the agent to guess at the failure route.

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