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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only notes that authentication is required, but fails to mention what happens after cancellation (e.g., success/failure returns, irreversibility, or potential idempotency). The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It gets straight to the point ('Cancel one resting prediction-market order. Auth required.') and is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple cancellation tool with only three parameters, the description is functional but not fully complete. It lacks any mention of return values, error cases (e.g., order already filled), or whether the operation is idempotent. Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptive text, so the description does not need to add further semantic detail. It correctly adds nothing beyond what the schema already conveys, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') with a precise resource ('one resting prediction-market order'), which clearly distinguishes it from cancel_all_pm_orders. It unambiguously states the action and scope.

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 implies single-order cancellation via the word 'one,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cancel_all_pm_orders or cancel_intent. It also does not provide exclusions or context for when cancellation might not be appropriate.

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