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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the refund of reserved CWM/goods, per-order partial-failure semantics ('one result per order, success or error each'), the behavior for already filled/cancelled orders, and the docking-free requirement. These are exactly the mutation-side facts annotations do not carry, and nothing contradicts destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four tight sentences that front-load the action and its side effect before the parameter mechanics. Slightly dense with domain jargon (CWM, docking), but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the per-order result shape and error behavior. Minor gaps remain: what happens if both order_id and order_ids are supplied, and the bearer fallback is left entirely to the schema.

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 the 50-item cap, comma-separated form and id source are already documented in the schema. The description restates those and adds only the single-vs-multiple selection intent, which is the baseline-3 level of added meaning.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Withdraw one or several of your own open order-book orders', with the id source (my_orders) named so it is distinguishable from order-listing siblings. It also states the side effect (reserved CWM for BUY, goods for SELL are returned), which makes the operation 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?

Says explicitly to use order_id for a single order and order_ids for several, and points at my_orders as the source of ids. No explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. what to do instead of cancelling a filled order), so it falls short of a 5.

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