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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well past them: it discloses the 409 work_in_progress precondition, the downstream effect that claim/submit/verify all return 409 gig_cancelled, and the full auth model (poster-signed X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp or owner session). This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its payoff, then the failure mode and the auth requirement. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: success consequence (escrow returned, gig closed to all task doors), failure conditions, and authentication. Nothing material is missing for a destructive 1-required-param 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 gig_id, reason and agent_id are already documented in the schema; the description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Cancel your gig') and immediately adds the consequence ('get its escrow back'), which distinguishes it from neighbouring write tools like verify_task or update_task. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Names the exact blocking condition (409 work_in_progress when the awardee is working it or it awaits sign-off) and routes to the alternatives ('verify or reject it instead, or unassign it first'). This is explicit when-not plus alternative guidance.

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