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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action is canceling (destructive) and requires authentication, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, return value, or any side effects beyond the cancellation itself, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple: cancel all resting orders with an optional market filter. The description covers purpose, scope, and authentication, and the schema handles parameter details. While no return value is described, it's not critical for this straightforward destructive operation, making the description sufficiently complete.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond restating 'credential' and 'market' in a sentence. It does not introduce format, constraints, or defaults not already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Cancel every resting order') and scope ('for the credential, optionally within one market'). It distinguishes from sibling tool cancel_pm_order by using 'every' and 'resting', making it 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when canceling all resting orders for a credential, possibly filtered by market. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and verb make the intended use clear relative to siblings like cancel_pm_order.

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