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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral aspects: 'full refund' and allowed states, implying side effects and conditions. However, it omits details such as refund timing, reversibility, and failure behavior for disallowed states, leaving the agent to infer these.

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 action verb. Every word contributes value, stating the operation, benefit, and conditions without fluff.

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 cancellation/refund tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly useful but incomplete. It includes the key constraint (allowed states) and outcome (full refund), but lacks details on refund processing, error handling, and whether the operation is reversible. This leaves some important ambiguity for an agent.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It only implies the task_id's role via 'Cancel a task', but does not explain its format or required values. The api_key has a schema description, but task_id lacks one, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 a task') and the outcome ('for a full refund'), making it distinct from sibling tools like legwork_approve or legwork_post_task. It also specifies the allowed states ('open, or claimed-and-overdue'), further clarifying the tool's 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 provides clear context on when cancellation is allowed ('open, or claimed-and-overdue'), which guides use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives like legwork_request_changes, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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