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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a precise state machine (OPEN|PARTIALLY_FILLED stays MINED/PENDING_FINALITY until exact canonical evidence exists; CANCELLED|FINALIZED only when the cancellation is already canonical). The proof requirement plus the schema's single-use proofNonce explains the non-obvious destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=false pair, so there is no contradiction, though the description itself never says the nonce is consumed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the return states, with no filler. The phrase 'exact canonical tx/log evidence' is repeated in near-duplicate form across the second and third sentences, which is the only mild redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the meaningful outcome states, and it covers the proof prerequisite and the mined-tx constraint. For a seven-parameter mutation-adjacent tool this is close to complete, missing only an explicit note on what happens if the tx is not yet mined.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes one extra fact only: that walletSignature/walletAddress must be the same maker proof used at preparation time, a cross-call linkage the schema does not state.

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: 'Verify a mined OrderCancelledEvent', and outlines the exact outcome states it reports. It implicitly separates itself from the broadcast-cancel siblings (problee_cancel_order, problee_cancel_orders) by requiring an already-mined tx, but never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'mined' qualifier and 'used to prepare cancellation' tell an agent this is a follow-up step to a prepared/broadcast cancellation. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as problee_get_transaction_status for general tx finality or problee_cancel_order for initiating a cancellation.

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