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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: written batches are still added and charged, screened/verified batches may still incur billing, credits are released, people already added stay, and status fields can change until finishedAt is set. This goes well beyond the annotations and warns about real side effects.

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 description is dense but every sentence adds necessary operational nuance: cancellation timing, billing implications, credit handling, status uncertainty, permanence, and the no-op case. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers detail in a logical order without fluff.

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 an asynchronous destructive operation with billing side effects and no output schema, the description covers all decision-relevant behavior: what is dropped, what is charged, what happens to credits, eventual status changes, permanence, and alternative next steps. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only parameter, id, is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including its source (importId from add_lead_finder_prospects or list_lead_finder_imports). The description does not need to repeat parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: "Stops a running Lead Finder add." It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_lead_finder_prospects (which starts imports) and get/list_lead_finder_imports (which monitor them), so an agent can tell exactly 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context (only a running add can meaningfully be stopped), a when-not-to-use signal ("Stopping one that already finished changes nothing"), and an alternative ("start a new add_lead_finder_prospects instead" since a stopped add cannot be resumed). This fully routes the agent.

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