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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by specifying exactly what is erased: the saved words, filters and address, plus that nothing further is sent. It also discloses the credential requirement (search_alert_id and manage_token from save_search_alert) and an alternate cancellation route, which is real context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then consequences, then prerequisites. No filler; each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

Covers the trigger, the destruction scope, the credentials and the alternate path, which is sufficient for a two-parameter mutation with full annotations and no output schema. Only minor gap is behavior on an already-cancelled alert, which idempotentHint=true largely covers.

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 parameter descriptions already state they come from save_search_alert, so the description's restatement of that provenance adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('an alert for new works'), which is unambiguous next to cancel_purchase or get_search_alert. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so the differentiation is inferred from the resource name rather than stated.

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?

'Use this when a buyer wants to stop an alert for new works' gives a clear triggering condition, and the one-click e-mail path is named as an alternative channel. There is no explicit when-not guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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