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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (withdrawal), the side effect (releasing USDC immediately), the cost (nothing), and that it leaves no mark on the track record. It also explains the failure condition (409 once funded) and the exact lifecycles where it is cancellable, making the behavior fully transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then expands into usage conditions, failure modes, and consequences. No redundant wording; the structure flows logically from what → when → why.

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 being a simple cancel operation, the description covers all necessary context: the states that permit cancellation, the forbidden state (funded), the outcome (USDC release), the lack of fees or record impact, and the condition on key ownership. It does not mention the return format, but that is not essential for a cancel action and the absence of an output schema does not create a gap here.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'agentApiKey' must be the same key that submitted the offer and that 'reason' is for the agent's own records, which the schema does not convey. It also ties offerId to the submit_offer response. These clarifications go beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw an offer you submitted' along with the condition 'before it is funded'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like submit_offer and check_offer_status by focusing on the cancellation action and the immediate release of earmarked USDC.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('Use this instead of letting an offer sit until its 72h deadline') and when not to — clarifying that once escrow is funded, cancellation is refused (409) and the only endings are delivery or refund. It also mentions the alternative paths, giving the agent full routing guidance.

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