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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds concrete consequences: deletion of the signal and cessation of new openings, plus the confirmation gate. This context goes beyond the basic annotation flags, though it doesn't mention irreversibility or side effects beyond the stated ones.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

Complete for a destructive tool with two fully described parameters and an output schema present. The description covers purpose, required user confirmation, the alternative for temporary pauses, and the effect of deletion. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description reinforces the confirmation requirement and the role of signal_id, but adds no new semantics not already in the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

Clearly states the action ('Stop tracking a company and delete its signal') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling signals.pause by explicitly naming it. The purpose is unambiguous and an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Confirm with the user first') and a direct alternative for a different scenario ('To stop notifications temporarily instead, use signals.pause'). This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool should be invoked versus a sibling.

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