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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: all tasks tied to the supplied IDs are stopped, and partial data from already-scanned pages remains retrievable. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The phrasing is slightly wordy ('This endpoint is designed to force stop...'), but every sentence contributes substance about scope and retained data.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the important behavioral question of what happens to in-progress crawls and their partial results. It is complete enough for correct invocation, missing only explicit guidance on when to stop versus wait.

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?

The description only alludes to 'IDs indicated in your request' without elaborating on the body array, batching, or the ID format. The schema's own embedded description (example UUID and the up-to-1000-IDs note) carries most of the parameter meaning, so the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 precise verb+resource: force-stopping the crawl process for tasks identified by their IDs. This is unambiguous and clearly separable from sibling tools like post_dataforseo_on_page_submit, which starts a crawl rather than stopping one.

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?

The description implies usage ('force stop the crawl process of websites you specified in a task') and references the Task POST endpoint as the source of IDs, but it never states when to use this versus letting a crawl finish, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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