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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the operation is atomic ('in one tx') and constrained by a chain limitation to SHORT_TERM orders. It stops short of stating the failure mode when a non-SHORT_TERM id is included or partial-cancel behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed immediately by the constraint and the alternative. No filler.

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?

Purpose, scope, constraint and sibling routing are all covered, and annotations carry the safety profile, so no output schema is needed. However, with zero schema descriptions, both required parameters remain semantically opaque, leaving a real gap for a destructive batch operation.

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% – neither 'market' nor 'clientIds' is described in the schema. The description implies multiple orders are targeted (consistent with clientIds) but never explains the market identifier format, the meaning of clientIds, or the 100-item cap. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Cancel), a resource (multiple SHORT_TERM orders), and a scope (in one tx). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cancel_all_orders by naming which order types each handles, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-not (SHORT_TERM only, due to a chain limitation) and names the alternative tool for stateful/mixed orders. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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