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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the wallet refund, the rejection condition after labels are sent, and the user-confirmation requirement. There is no contradiction with the annotations, including idempotentHint=true.

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 short sentences with no filler: the core action, the timing limitation, and the destructive-action warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with an output schema and complete annotations, this covers the preconditions, the failure mode, the postcondition (refund), and the required user confirmation. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents order_id, including the source (list_my_lunch_orders) and the preconditions (finalized, labels not sent). With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail and does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides.

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 ('Cancels'), a resource ('finalized order'), and the resulting effect ('refunds the charge to the wallet'). The phrase 'finalized order' clearly distinguishes this from draft-focused siblings like discard_lunch_order_draft and create_lunch_order_draft.

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?

Explicitly gives the acceptable timing ('before order labels have been sent') and the when-not case ('after that the request is rejected and the order stands'). It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user before cancelling. It does not name a sibling alternative for drafts, but the finalized-order phrasing covers the primary routing decision.

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