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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the post-condition: results found so far can still be read. It does not explain what happens to the search process itself (cancelled vs paused) or whether the search_id remains valid, but for a two-parameter tool this is solid added context.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and its dependency front-loaded and the reassuring side effect second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 control tool with no output schema and fully covered parameters, the description supplies the essential context: what it terminates, what it depends on, and what remains readable. Minor gaps around the search's end state and result retrieval 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%, so search_id and the optional device parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or identification guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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+resource ('Stop a search') and ties it to the originating sibling tool ('started with start_search'), which lets an agent pair the two without opening either schema. It also names the effect on results, distinguishing it from generic termination tools like force_terminate.

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 establishes context (only meaningful for a search initiated by start_search) and reassures the agent that results are not lost, which is the key decision input for stopping early. It stops short of naming an alternative such as letting the search finish or using get_more_search_results to continue reading.

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