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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: dependent apps or visitors lose access temporarily, and the service remains billed while stopped. It does not cover permissions or return behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and then immediately explains the practical consequence. It is short, information-dense, and has no wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it identifies the action, the temporary loss of service, and the billing implication. Minor gaps such as explicit permission requirements or output behavior remain, but they are not critical here.

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 the single id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_services. The description does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource: stop a service. It explains the scope well, but it does not explicitly differentiate this action from sibling tools such as restart_service or delete_service.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Stop a service until it is started again,' and the consequence clarifies what stopping means. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose stop_service over restart_service or delete_service, nor does it state exclusions.

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