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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the full cost model: free to call, charged only for companies already delivered, a pre-start cancellation costs nothing, unused reservation returned, and max_cost_usd searches instead pay for search effort up to budget. It also states the 30-day readability window for delivered companies and reiterates irreversibility — exactly the consequences an agent needs before destroying a task.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then layered: cost, then the max_cost_usd exception, then retention, then irreversibility. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information and none repeats the annotations or schema.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers when it applies, what it costs, what survives, and that it is irreversible. The only gap is that, absent an output schema, it doesn't indicate what the call returns (e.g., a settlement/refund summary), though that is a minor omission.

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% and the schema itself explains task_id, its uuid format, its origin (company-search or company-enrich), and that People Search task_ids are not found here. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Cancel a Company Search or Company Enrich task') and scopes it to exactly the two task families it handles. Combined with the sibling list (company-search-pause/resume/status), an agent can immediately tell this is the terminal-stopping operation rather than a query or pause.

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 implied rather than spelled out: 'stops for good' and 'cannot be undone' signal this is the irreversible path, which implicitly contrasts with the pause/resume siblings, and 'Free' plus the refund rules help the agent decide. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit 'use company-search-pause instead if you may want to resume' guidance.

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