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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description usefully adds that saved results are kept (explaining the non-destructive profile), but 'ask again to restart it' is ambiguous and could be misread as re-invoking the tool starts a new run, which would sit awkwardly against idempotentHint=true.

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 short sentences with the action and lookup key front-loaded and the lifecycle note second. Nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers scope and post-stop state adequately, but omits the applicationIds parameter and gives no indication of what the call returns or whether a stopped run can be restarted by the agent's own re-invocation.

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 0% across two parameters. The description names runId but adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond the schema's own property name, and it never mentions applicationIds at all, leaving a required nested object plus one array parameter wholly unexplained.

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'), a specific resource (a running run identified by runId), and the scope (Grant's or a teammate's work). No sibling tool offers stopping semantics, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 phrase 'running work by runId' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative named. No sibling competes for this action, so the lack of routing guidance is a minor rather than severe gap.

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