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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: cancellation only stops tracking, the job may still complete, and credits are consumed regardless. This is exactly the non-obvious semantics an agent must know before calling a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, ending with the endpoint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, and billing consequences completely. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the single jobid parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it. Baseline 3 for a fully covered single param.

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+resource ('Stop tracking a running job') plus the concrete side effect of freeing a maxJobs slot. Distinct from get_job and list_jobs without needing to open any 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?

Implied usage is clear (cancel a running job), but it doesn't explicitly state when to cancel versus polling get_job first, nor name alternatives. The side-effect caveat ('may still finish') is guidance about expectations rather than about tool selection.

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