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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description adds substantial value: it discloses the billing side effect, the request-failure behavior, and the reversibility of the action. It stops short of stating required permissions or whether in-flight requests are drained first.

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 and its effect, followed by the failure behavior and the underlying API mapping. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the billing consequence, the failure mode, and the endpoint mapping an agent needs. Nothing material 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 endpoint_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Names a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('dedicated endpoint') and states the immediate effect ('stops its per-minute billing'), which distinguishes it from the sibling together_start_endpoint. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies: a running endpoint whose billing should cease, with the resulting failure mode of inbound requests. It implies the counterpart action ('until it is started again') but never names together_start_endpoint as the alternative, so exclusions are left to inference.

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