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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: it details the refund outcome in each phase (pre-sourcing refunds funds/labor/fee, post-sourcing refunds fee plus 50% labor), where materials go (station vs faction storage), and the faction cancellation policy. This is strong mutation consequence disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement before the parenthetical detail, and each parenthetical clause describes a distinct refund scenario that earns its place. The nested run-on parenthetical is dense and slightly hard to parse, costing the top mark.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the consequences an agent must anticipate (refunds, material returns, faction policy). Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (session_id, commission_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (cancel) and resource (ship commission) plus a precise scope qualifier: 'pending or in-progress'. An agent can distinguish it from commission_quote, commission_ship, commission_status, and cancel_order without opening any 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?

Clearly establishes the condition under which cancellation is valid ('a commission that hasn't finished yet' / 'pending or in-progress'), which is real usage context. It does not, however, name alternative commission tools or explicitly exclude finished/other states by tool name, so no sibling routing.

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