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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses that canceled runs are not billed and that completed runs cannot be canceled (reinforcing idempotency). Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the billing and state constraints are the meaningful additions; error/response behavior remains unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the cost note and the state limitation, plus a compact '[무료]' cost tag. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, cost implications, and the blocking condition, while annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, only omitting explicit error/confirmation behavior.

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 run_id param is already documented as 'the run_id returned by run_skill'. The description adds no format or linkage detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('아직 끝나지 않은 실행을 취소합니다' = cancels a not-yet-finished execution) and scopes it by run state. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the cancellation semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear when/when-not conditions: usable on unfinished runs, impossible on runs that have already completed. No alternative tool is named, so it falls short of a 5, but the operative constraint is spelled out.

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