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

Adds real substance beyond the annotations: it discloses that the withdrawal only touches vaults no other live order uses (partial-scope safety), that the result is an ordered list of unsigned transactions, and that nothing is signed or sent server-side — which explains why readOnlyHint=true is coherent rather than contradictory for a 'cancel' tool. It does not cover failure conditions or permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence opens with the concrete action and sequencing ('withdraw… then remove'), followed by the return contract. Dense and waste-free, though the second clause packs three ideas (signing location, ordering, no side effects) into one breath.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (ordered unsigned transactions for external signing). For a 3-param write-intent tool this is close to sufficient; only error/precondition behavior and orderHash semantics are left implicit.

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 67%; chainId's enum is documented and owner is described, but orderHash has no description in either the schema or the description. The prose refers only to 'the order' without adding format, sourcing, or validity semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('cancel a limit order') and goes further to describe the two-step effect: withdraw remaining vault holdings to the wallet, then remove the order. This clearly separates it from list_limit_orders (read) and place_limit_order (create) among the siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — the caller infers they need an existing orderHash (presumably from list_limit_orders) and a wallet to sign with. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion, and no mention of prerequisites such as ownership or whether partially filled orders are cancellable.

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