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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description still earns credit by disclosing the concrete blast radius: the delivery and match records for the affected channels are deleted while the saved search persists — a material fact not present in any structured field. It could go further on irreversibility or behavior when the alert is already stopped.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and id, followed by the effect and the persistence caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, deletion effect, and what survives — everything needed to invoke it correctly and without surprise.

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 both parameters are documented, including the enum of channels and 'Omit for all'. The description's 'on every channel or on the one named' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 one job alert by its id') and scopes the operation to every channel or a single named one, so an agent can distinguish it from subscribe/update_subscription. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 rather than stated: 'Stop one job alert' plus the note that the saved search itself remains as a bookmarked search tells the agent what this tool does and what it is not for. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance — e.g., whether update_subscription should be preferred to pause rather than stop an alert.

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