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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: cancellation requires human approval in the browser, the job may belong to a teammate, and the call returns observed state rather than a guarantee that workers stopped. That last caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: action, authorization, return semantics with caveat, and next-step guidance. The scoping constraint is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('the job's observed state'), its limits, and the required follow-up polling loop. For a single-parameter mutation tool this leaves nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the schema only supplies a UUID format/pattern, so the description must carry meaning — and it does, clarifying that job_id must be exact and may reference a teammate's job rather than only the caller's own. That permission nuance is real value not present in 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?

Specific verb ('Requests cancellation') plus resource ('the exact job_id'), and it names get_search_job as the follow-up tool, so the agent can place it in a workflow. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling cancel_run, which is a nearby alternative an agent could confuse it with.

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?

'Next: get_search_job until it reports a terminal state' and 'Do not start replacement work while the outcome... is unknown' give clear post-use sequencing and an explicit prohibition, which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of saying when to use this versus cancel_run, so no explicit alternative routing.

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