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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It states the cancellation outcome, the timing ('reports cancelled within a minute'), and the partial-report behavior ('pages compared so far in its report'), giving the agent concrete expectations.

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?

The main sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action and key behavior. The trailing 'Free.' adds little operational value and could be considered noise, keeping this from a perfect score.

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 simple cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core outcome, timing, and report contents. It does not mention immediate return behavior or error cases, but the essential context for invoking the tool is present.

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 only 50%; jobToken is documented but jobId is only given a pattern. The description does not explain the roles of these parameters or how they relate to the running job, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a running job,' which clearly identifies a cancellation operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_comparison (starting) and get_comparison/get_report (reading results).

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 clearly indicates the tool is for stopping a running job, so the context of use is obvious. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives or describe when not to use it, but there is no competing cancel tool among the siblings.

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