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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds a valuable warning that this action cuts a driver's charge, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also names the OCPP RemoteStopTransaction protocol, giving technical transparency.

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 waste. The core action is front-loaded, the protocol is named, and the warning is placed immediately after. Every word 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 destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risk (cutting a driver's charge) and the protocol. It doesn't describe the response format, but with no output schema and a simple action, this is a minor gap. The warning compensates for the lack of annotation detail.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the optionality of transaction_id by saying 'si se omite, se para la sesión activa del cargador' — though that's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Para una carga en curso') and the resource (a charging session via OCPP RemoteStopTransaction). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like askacharge_arrancar_carga (start charging) and askacharge_desbloquear_conector (unlock connector).

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 description implies when to use it: to stop an ongoing charge. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the verb 'para' make the context clear. The warning about cutting a driver's charge adds practical usage context.

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