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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable prerequisite that the signature must originate from prepare_cancel, but says nothing about irreversibility, on-chain/gas implications, or failure modes for a destructive open-world action.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the key prerequisite. Every word carries 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 annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema to explain returns, the description is close to adequate, but for a destructive submission tool it omits what a successful cancellation yields, whether it submits on-chain, and how errors surface.

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?

Coverage is 50%: signature has a schema description and orderHash only a regex pattern. The description adds real meaning by stating the signature's provenance (from prepare_cancel), but contributes nothing about the orderHash parameter or format expectations, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Cancels an open order') and disambiguates from the sibling prepare_cancel by stating the signature must come from it. An agent can distinguish submit_cancel from prepare_cancel without opening either 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?

The phrase 'with a signature from prepare_cancel' establishes the prerequisite step and thus when this tool applies relative to its sibling. It does not spell out exclusions (e.g., what to do if the order is already filled or expired), but the workflow context is clear.

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