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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses cost ('Free'), the refund mechanics (pay only for delivered people, remainder of reservation returned), a 30-day readability window for partial results, and explicit irreversibility. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before committing a destructive call.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost, then consequence, then irreversibility. No sentence repeats the schema or the annotations verbatim.

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 description covers the aspects that matter most: billing, refund, data retention, and permanence. It leaves edge cases unaddressed, such as calling it on an already-completed or already-cancelled task, so it falls just short of complete.

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 task_id is documented there with a UUID format and example, and the description adds no parameter detail of its own. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 People Search task') and the phrase 'stops for good' implicitly distinguishes it from the pause sibling. It never names pause/resume explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'stops for good' hints that this is the terminal option versus pausing, but the description never says when to cancel instead of pause, nor what happens if the task already finished. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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