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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: no refund for the remaining window, catalogue entries are the venue's to keep or drop, ownership is proved by the paying wallet with no account, and the placeholder-signature handshake that surfaces details.expected. This is real disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

The core operation is front-loaded and efficient, but the closing paragraph about complaints, quote requests, and POST /feedback is tangential to invoking this tool and dilutes the definition. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place here.

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 destructive cancel with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: cost (free), irreversibility, no refund, what happens to catalogue entries, and the signature flow including the details.expected fallback. Only the exact response shape and id-reuse edge cases 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 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description goes further by explaining the auth mechanic: sending a placeholder signature returns details.expected, the exact message to sign, in both EIP-191 and solana:<pubkey>:<sig> forms. That adds semantics the schema's per-field text does not.

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 ("stop the weekly rechecks and drop the order") with clear scope, and distinguishes itself from the placement_status/ready/venues siblings by describing the irreversible drop. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage is clear from "stop the weekly rechecks" and the owner-signed constraint, and the caller is warned there is no refund. However, it never says when to prefer this over placement_status/placement_ready, nor when not to cancel.

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