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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds the signer boundary detail ('hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required'), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose failure modes, fees, or effects on order state.

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?

The first sentence is concise, but the description is dominated by verbose SAP MCP context that, while potentially relevant, obscures the core purpose. The SAP guidance could be moved to a separate metadata or annotation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits key behavioral context such as error handling (invalid orderId), post-cancellation state, fees, and reversibility. Given the complexity of a destructive blockchain operation, this is insufficient.

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 100% with each parameter described (wallet and marketId as Solana public key, orderId as Order ID). The tool description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Cancel an open order on an Openbook market,' which clearly specifies the verb (cancel), resource (open order), and context (Openbook market). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manifest_cancelOrder and openbook_placeOrder.

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 extensive SAP MCP workflow guidance but lacks concrete advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manifest_cancelOrder), prerequisites (e.g., order existence), or when not to use it (e.g., if already filled). The SAP guidance is tangential to core usage.

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