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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the run stops in about five seconds, keeps already-produced findings and probes, returns immediately, requires the test:run scope, and treats cancellation of an already-finished run as a conflict. It also gives an important interpretive warning about cancelled-run verdicts and categories_completed. This is substantively richer than the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations alone.

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 purpose and the key counterpart relationship are front-loaded, and the later sentences carry useful operational and interpretive warnings rather than filler. It is somewhat long for a one-parameter tool, but every section adds concrete value.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it still covers timing, polling behavior, conflict handling, required scope, and the important caveat about partial results. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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% and the sole required parameter, run_id, has no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain what run_id is, where to obtain it, or its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Ask a running assessment to stop') and explicitly distinguishes the tool from its sibling trigger_assessment as its counterpart. It also clarifies the intended scope: a run you started against the wrong target or no longer need.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('for a run you started against the wrong target or no longer need') and when not to expect success ('A run that has already finished is a conflict, not a retryable error'). It also names the follow-up tool, get_assessment_status, for polling, which effectively routes the agent to the right alternative after cancellation.

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