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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this cancels something. The description confirms the effect (stops a running process) and adds the endpoint context, but omits material behavior: whether the stop is immediate, whether partially produced routes/results survive, and error behavior when no planning is active.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing 'OptimoRoute: POST /stop_planning' is somewhat redundant against the name/title, but it is brief and gives API-level context at negligible cost.

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 mutation with no output schema and a destructive annotation already present, the description covers what the tool does and its key input. Only secondary details – post-stop state and idempotency/error behavior – are missing, which is mild for a tool this simple.

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 the single parameter's description already explains that planningId comes from optimoroute_start_planning. The description only restates 'by its planningId', adding no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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 (Stop) and resource (a running planning/optimization process) and identifies the key (planningId). It is clearly the counterpart to start_planning, though it never explicitly names that sibling as the pivot point.

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 'Stop a running planning process' – an agent can infer it is used to cancel an in-flight optimization. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the start_planning alternative, and no note on what to do if no planning is running.

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