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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, and write-operation traits. The description adds useful behavioral context that stopping the heartbeat does not close any orders, narrowing the side-effect scope beyond the annotations. It still omits auth or return semantics, though an output schema exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key non-effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to sibling heartbeat tools such as refresh_heartbeat.

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 coverage is 100% and the single heartbeat_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb 'Stop' and resource 'heartbeat', and clarifies that it does not close orders, which distinguishes it from close_order and close_all_orders. It does not explicitly differentiate from refresh_heartbeat or create_heartbeat, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the description only states the effect. The agent must infer that this tool is for ending an existing heartbeat rather than creating, listing, or refreshing one.

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