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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the customer receives a cancellation email, an open card payment is closed, and the operation is restricted to unpaid orders. It also adds the constraint that it must be done only on explicit customer instruction. The idempotentHint=true annotation is not contradicted; the description doesn't claim non-idempotency. Slight gap: no mention of what happens if the order is already in production, but the 'not yet in production' condition implies it.

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 compact but information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: the condition, the effect, the exclusion, the fallback contact, and the authorization constraint. It is front-loaded with the most important condition (unpaid, not in production).

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 tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when it's allowed, what side effects occur, and what to do when it can't be used. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the behavior for an order already in production, but the 'not yet in production' condition implies it's not cancellable via this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the statusToken parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining where the token comes from (last part of statusUrl from create_order) and that it grants full access, which is useful context beyond the schema's bare description.

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 tool cancels an UNPAID order not yet in production, and explicitly says paid orders cannot be cancelled. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact condition (unpaid, not in production) and the action (same as the button on the status page).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only with a statusToken, only on explicit customer instruction, and only for unpaid orders not yet in production. It also tells the agent what to do if the order is paid (write to potisk@suorigo.cz), which is a clear alternative path.

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