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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: it builds an unsigned transaction, returns transactionBase64 only after simulation passes, instructs to show approval only under specific conditions (safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false), and clarifies the signer boundary (hosted builders never receive keypair bytes, value-moving results must be finalized locally). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate destructive and non-read-only). No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is verbose, especially the 'SAP MCP execution guidance' block which repeats pricing, routing, and signer boundary details in a dense paragraph. While the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, the subsequent boilerplate is lengthy and could be condensed. It is not concise; each sentence does not necessarily earn 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 complexity (hosted builder, payment requirements, simulation gating, approval conditions), the description covers the essential operational context: returns unsigned transaction, simulation requirement, approval handling, signer boundary, and payment routing. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) covers return structure. Minor gaps include what happens if the order is not found or if the simulation fails, but overall it is fairly complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — each parameter (owner, collateralToken, orderId) has a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how the parameters interact or edge cases. Since the schema fully covers parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value here.

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 the specific action: 'Build an unsigned transaction to cancel a limit order on Adrena.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'cancel a limit order' and including the behavior of returning transactionBase64. The verb, resource, and scope are all explicit.

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 includes operational guidance about pricing and routing (estimate first, use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if needed) and signer boundary, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like sap_adrena_build_cancel_stop_loss. The 'SAP MCP execution guidance' is about invocation process, not tool selection. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is limited to process context, not tool-choice context.

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