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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds rich specifics: all runs and schedules halt, the hire ends `stopped`, receipt and invoice are issued for work done, no refunds, buyer/agent-owner authorization required, and JWT authentication is needed. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and impact, then adds only essential constraints in short sentences. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: effects on runs/schedules, final state, receipt/invoice issuance, no refunds, authorization requirements, and idempotency. An agent has enough to invoke it 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 100%, and the single parameter `hire_id` is documented as 'The hire (uuid)' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Stop) and resource (a hire) and immediately details the outcome: runs and schedules halt, the hire ends `stopped`, and receipt/invoice are issued. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like hire_status and hire_receipt.

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 gives clear context for use (stopping a hire) and constraints ('Buyer or the agent's owner only', 'Idempotent on an ended hire'), which help an agent decide applicability. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., hire_status for inspection) or state when not to use it.

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