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

Annotations carry only idempotentHint, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: login requirement, preview-before-commit safety, that cancellation is not a refund ('取消非退款'), and that concurrent payment/close may result in an already-paid order where success must be read from the returned status. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotation provides.

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?

Dense, front-loaded and free of filler; the login prerequisite and preview-then-confirm flow lead, followed by the concurrency/failure caveat. The single semicolon-chained sentence is efficient, if a touch packed.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, it covers the essential gaps: the confirm flow, idempotent reuse of previewHash, and guidance to read success from the returned status. It stops short of describing the response status fields, but nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 0%, so the description must explain all three params, and it effectively does: preview toggles preview vs. confirm, previewHash is the value returned from the preview step reused on confirm, and outTradeNo identifies the order. It compensates well, though the previewHash derivation and outTradeNo format are only implied rather than spelled out.

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?

The description states a specific two-phase operation on a specific resource: preview '本人未付订单' then close the original order with previewHash + preview=false. It clearly belongs to the payment-order lifecycle, distinguishing it implicitly from read-only get_payment_order and from resume_payment_order, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit call sequence: preview first, then re-issue the same params plus previewHash with preview=false to confirm. It also scopes who may use it ('本人', requires login) and warns of the concurrency exception. No explicit exclusion of siblings, but the when-to-use path is clear.

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