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

Despite annotations already covering safety, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call itself mutates nothing, it returns a preview plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant on that page can complete the removal. That two-step workflow is exactly the kind of thing an agent cannot learn from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 core sentences about the preview/confirmation workflow are front-loaded and earn their place, but the sentence "Money is integer minor units (cents)" is dead weight here — this tool takes no monetary argument. One of four sentences is off-topic, dragging an otherwise tight description down.

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 two-parameter destructive workflow with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that the call is non-mutating, what it returns in broad terms, and who can finalize. It stops short of describing the preview payload or how the confirmation link is consumed, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and both parameters (find, orderNumber) are documented in the schema with examples and conditions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter detail; its one numeric remark ("Money is integer minor units") does not map to any parameter of this tool.

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?

"Take a parcel off an order" is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can act on immediately, and the parcel/order framing is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as orders_update_shipment or orders_refund, which also manipulate an order's fulfillment state.

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 usage by explaining the preview-and-confirm flow, so an agent can infer this is the entry point for parcel removal. But it never states when to prefer this over orders_update_shipment (e.g. to change rather than remove a parcel) or what preconditions apply (parcel must exist, single vs. multi-parcel orders).

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