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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: the tool returns an unsigned transaction the wallet must sign rather than mutating state itself. It also discloses the economic effect (collateral or USDG returns to the maker) and the maker-only restriction, which annotations cannot express. Minor gap: no mention of failure modes such as expired or already-filled orders.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the economic detail and permission rule packed into trailing clauses. Nothing is wasted and the ordering follows what an agent needs first.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, who may call it, timing, and the effect on funds. It does not describe the returned unsigned transaction's shape, but the 'unsigned transaction' framing plus the title ('Prepare: ...') makes the return contract inferable.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only an implied constraint that the wallet must be the maker, which is useful but thin compared to 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+resource pair upfront: 'Unsigned transaction cancelling an ask or a bid.' An agent immediately knows this retracts a resting order rather than creating one, which separates it from siblings like post_bid or write_option.

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?

Gives concrete authorization and timing conditions: 'Only the maker may, until the series expires; then anyone may.' This tells the agent when the call will succeed or fail. It does not name alternative tools or handling for already-filled orders, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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