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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: paid money is returned to balance, and the operation only works before the order starts. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether the refund is immediate, permissions required, or what happens if the order has already started.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action first and the refund consequence second. No filler, and the most important constraint is 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and main consequence but omits the identifier's meaning, failure behavior when the precondition is violated, and whether the refund is synchronous. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is only 50%: api_key is documented in the schema but the required `id` has no description anywhere. The description never clarifies whether `id` is an order id or a request id, which is exactly the gap the low coverage requires it to fill.

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 order") and adds a scope qualifier ("that has not started"). However, the tool is named cancel_request while the description says "order", and siblings include get_request/list_requests, so the request-vs-order naming leaves a small ambiguity about which resource is being cancelled.

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 phrase "has not started" gives an implicit precondition for when the tool applies, which is useful. But no alternative is named (e.g. what to do if it has already started, or whether contact_human/request_action are the fallbacks), so the agent must infer the when-not path.

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