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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the search ends with the prospects it has found, only prospects with a working email are charged, and charging settles within a minute, with an explicit 'Free' note. It stops short of full transparency about what happens to the found prospects afterward (retrievable via prospects_list/get?), but the billing and timing semantics are valuable disclosures not present in the structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler. The billing clause is compact and earns its place.

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-param, non-destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavior (search terminates, billing rules, timing). Only the post-stop lifecycle of the prospects is unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a clear schema description ('The call_id prospects_find answered with'), the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no extra param detail, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when coverage is complete.

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?

"Stop a search" gives a clear verb and resource and is easily distinguished from prospects_find/prospects_get. However it doesn't explicitly name the sibling relationship (that it halts a search started by prospects_find), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The usage is implied: call this to end a running prospect search. There is no explicit 'when' vs 'when not', no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to prospects_find as the trigger or to alternatives for handling results.

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