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

Annotations declare destructive=true/readOnly=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it states that existing fills are completed purchases and are not undone, discloses the two-phase confirm=false preview vs confirm=true commit behavior, and notes auth is required.

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 usage trigger, then effect, then irreversibility, then the phase model and auth requirement. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no padding.

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?

Coverage is complete for a two-param mutation: trigger, effect, reversibility limits, confirmation protocol, and auth need are all stated, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm preview/commit semantics. The description largely restates the two-phase behavior rather than adding new parameter meaning, so 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('rescind' a 'standing offer') and immediately bounds the effect ('closes it to new fills'). It also points to the alternative path when the user instead wants to bid on something open, which separates it from the make_offer/cancel_my_offer family.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given via user phrasings ('cancel that standing offer', 'stop waiting on those') plus the routing rule to an open-listing offer when that is the real intent. This is unambiguous when-to-use guidance.

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