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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the refund consequence and its condition (SMS already received = no refund), which is real behavioral value, but it omits irreversibility, permission/auth needs, and what the call returns or errors on.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action stated first and the refund consequence second. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

For a one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and the key financial side effect. It could go slightly further on whether cancellation is reversible or what happens on failure, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema alone fully documents orderId. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, but the baseline for a fully-covered single parameter is 4.

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 and resource ('cancel an active order') and constrains the target to active orders, which distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_order. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from cancel_all_orders, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Scope of 'active order' is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, cancel_all_orders, or the SMS/check_sms prerequisite hinted by the refund rule. Usage must be inferred.

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