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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still adds substantial behavior: it runs immediately, is irreversible, preserves already-recorded answers, spends no further prompt runs, and lists the two refusal conditions. It stops short of describing auth/permission requirements or the response shape, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: effect and precondition first, side effects second, routing alternative and refusal third. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers what gets stopped, what survives cancellation, what it costs, when it is refused, and which tool to use instead. An agent has everything required to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including that audit_id must be queued/running and where it comes from. The description repeats that constraint in prose but adds no new format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Stop a queued or running audit") and immediately scopes it to the two valid lifecycle states. It explicitly names the sibling that handles the related-but-different job (prepare_launch_audit), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions ("after the user agrees", launched by mistake, wrong engines), an explicit alternative for the follow-up action (prepare_launch_audit), and a when-not clause ("Refused if the audit is not in this project or has already finished"). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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