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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: only queued orders can be cancelled, the order is non-reloadable, and the charged amount is credited back to the account balance. This goes well beyond a bare 'cancel order' statement.

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, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and the key behavioral details in the second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-required-parameter cancel operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what can be cancelled, the state requirement, and the refund behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention the expected failure mode for already-fulfilled orders.

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 both parameters fully. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('queued international non-reloadable card order'), and adds the state precondition (`state=queued`). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like order_intl_card and order_gift_card.

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 a clear condition for use: the order must be previously queued and not yet fulfilled by an admin. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the precondition makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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