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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important side effects: creators already kept stay in the list, and stopped=false is a normal non-error result. It also directs a follow-up status check, which is valuable behavioral context for a non-read-only tool.

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 action, then usage conditions, side effects, and no-op return behavior. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information without repetition or waste.

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 tool with six schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, what persists, and the key non-error return case. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the likely outcome.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description reinforces list_id as the key input and its origin from run_ugc_agent, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the remaining parameters.

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 and resource: stop a search started by run_ugc_agent, keyed by list_id. It clearly distinguishes this control action from run_ugc_agent and get_run_status, so an agent can identify its role without opening the 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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: only when the user asks to cancel or when get_run_status has reported 'running' for more than 15 minutes. It also routes the agent to call get_run_status afterward, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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