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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it discloses partial completion behavior (stops after the current contact), spending implications (stops further spending), and that already-enriched contacts remain enriched and charged. Missing idempotency or no-op behavior, but the key operational consequences are covered.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the important behavioral and billing consequences. No wasted text.

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 single-parameter stop action with no output schema, the description covers the important operational semantics: partial completion and cost impact. It leaves only minor gaps such as behavior when no enrichment is running.

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 id parameter is already documented as the custom audience UUID. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so 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 and resource: stop an in-progress custom audience enrichment. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from enrich_custom_audience and status-related siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Makes clear it is for an enrichment that is already in progress and notes that stopping occurs after the current contact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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