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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds valuable non-structured behavior: the challenge/retry authorization handshake and that the challenge is short-lived, which is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the procedural detail, with no filler or repetition.

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, so return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers the multi-step auth flow for a destructive mutation. It falls short only in not explaining how the challenge obtained on the first call relates to the authorization object passed on the retry.

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 0% with three parameters including a nested authorization object, so the schema alone leaves fields undocumented. The description implies the role of `authorization` (payer's EIP-712 signature) and the first-call/second-call distinction, but says nothing about `orderHandle` or what `request` should contain.

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 ('Request cancellation of an order'), which cleanly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like daski_get_order_status and from daski_confirm_delivery. It is clear but does not explicitly name which sibling it replaces or complements.

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?

Gives concrete procedural guidance: call once without authorization to obtain a short-lived challenge, then retry with the payer's EIP-712 authorization. This is real when/how guidance for the two-phase flow, though it never addresses when to prefer this over alternatives such as contacting support.

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