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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: an accepted call may still be stopping and no refund is promised, which helps the agent set expectations for a destructive stop operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger, with no wasted words. Each sentence contributes distinct 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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations covering destructive/non-idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It could more explicitly state whether finishing is irreversible for the owner, but the key caveats are 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 100%, so all four parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces that retryVersion is the current one, but adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 action and scope: 'Stop further tries' on a call request after the owner asks to finish. That is clearly distinguishable from retry_call or approve_call, though it does not explicitly contrast with close sibling tools like end_call or close_task.

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 trigger condition — 'after the owner asks to finish' — is stated, which implies when to use it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to end_call or close_task.

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