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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine nuance beyond that: queued searches are stopped outright, running ones are cancelled only best-effort, and completed results are preserved. It still says nothing about permissions, irreversibility, or partial-failure reporting, so it is useful but incomplete.

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 tight sentences with the outcome front-loaded and no wasted phrasing. The closing sentence 'Finished results stay with the user' is slightly informal but carries real information about data retention.

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, single-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers what happens to in-flight and finished work, which is the core need. It omits the identifier's provenance, expected return (e.g., counts cancelled), and idempotency behavior, leaving gaps an agent would want filled before invoking a destructive cancel.

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?

The single required parameter batch_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or where to obtain a valid value (e.g., from prepare_investigation_batch or get_investigation_batch). The description therefore does not 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 states a concrete effect: it stops searches that have not started and cancels running ones where possible, which makes the outcome clear beyond the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as cancel_find or approve_investigation_batch, leaving the agent to infer from the name that this operates on a batch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus cancel_find, nor any prerequisite such as whether the batch must be approved or running first. The agent gets a behavior description but no selection criteria or when-not-to-use conditions.

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