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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real substance beyond that: cancellation is graceful, stopping new page scheduling while letting in-flight work drain. It also discloses the auth requirement (Geonode API key as X-Api-Key header), which annotations do not cover.

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, then the cancellation semantics, then the auth requirement. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, semantics, and auth. A note on what state the job ends in or what is returned would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains job_id as the crawl job identifier and clarifies the api_key parameter's transport (X-Api-Key header), which the bare schema does not. It does not clarify whether api_key is optional or falls back to an environment variable.

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 verb and resource ("Cancel a crawl job by its job ID") and clarifies scope with crawl semantics. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like crawl_status or cancel_batch, but the action verb is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: cancellation presupposes an existing crawl job, presumably found via crawl_status or jobs. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to cancel_batch for batch jobs, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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