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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that no money moves, that a specific error (order_not_reserved) is returned once the order has progressed, and that an Authorization header is required. These behavioral details meaningfully exceed the annotations.

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?

Four purposeful sentences, each earning its place: the action and constraint, the error condition, the money clarification, and the auth requirement. The key 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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers timing, failure mode, side effects (no money movement), auth, and what to do after the reserved window. The output schema covers any return details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already fully describes orderId as 'The uuid of the RESERVED order to reject,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, 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 states a specific verb ('Rejects'), the resource ('an order'), and the actor ('on behalf of the SELLER'). It also pins down the exact state condition ('only allowed while the order is still RESERVED'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like orders.place or orders.status.

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 explicitly defines when the tool is allowed (while RESERVED, before dispatch/payment) and what happens past that point. It also directs the agent to the normal Resollo order page for anything after dispatch, providing a clear fallback alternative.

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