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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the process must be 'running' and that planningId comes from start_planning, but it says nothing about whether stopping is reversible, whether results are discarded, what errors occur for an unknown/completed ID, or what is returned.

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 scoping constraint front-loaded and the API endpoint mapping trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter command tool with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, the definition has what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around post-stop state and error conditions, 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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The planningId returned by optimoroute_start_planning.' The description only restates that the ID identifies the planning, adding no format, type, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 a running planning (optimization) process') plus the identifying parameter, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling optimoroute_start_planning or get_planning_status, but the verb does the differentiating work indirectly.

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 by 'running planning process' — an agent can infer this is only for in-flight optimizations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what to do if the planning already finished, and no named alternative or prerequisite beyond the planningId reference.

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