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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two side effects (marks scans interrupted, releases the schedule lock), which is real value, but omits permissions required, irreversibility, and whether it works on non-stuck scans.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key action and its effects parenthetically attached; zero filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful rather than padded.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three fully undocumented parameters, the description is thin. It omits required permissions, return behavior, and error conditions an agent needs before invoking it.

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 0% for all three parameters (reason, agent_id, scan_ids), and the description clarifies none of them. It does not say what a reason is for, whether agent_id scopes the abort, or whether scan_ids can be a partial list.

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 scans) and narrows scope to 'stuck running scans,' which distinguishes it from delete_scans and continue_scan. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling to route the agent, leaving full differentiation to inference.

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?

'Stop stuck running scans' implies a use case (recovering scans that are hung), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as delete_scans or continue_scan. Usage is only implied.

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