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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that only queued searches are safely cancellable, though it does not explain what happens to job data or the error behavior if the job is running.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint immediately following. There is no wasted language.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential safety constraint. It could add how to confirm a job is queued or what error to expect if it is running, but no output schema means return-value details are not required.

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?

The schema fully documents request_id as an idempotency UUID, while job_id has no schema description but is implicitly identified by the phrase 'queued search.' The description adds little explicit parameter meaning beyond that implication, which is reasonable at 50% schema coverage but not compensating further.

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, 'Cancel a queued search,' and clarifies the scope by distinguishing queued searches from running ones. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling read/list/get search tools.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition (queued searches) and an exclusion (running searches cannot be safely cancelled while a worker is charging a chunk). It does not point the agent to get_search_job or list_search_jobs to verify job state, nor describe alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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