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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds real value by specifying what is halted ('checks and events'), but it does not say whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to already-emitted events, or what the caller receives back.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the action and scope come first and the example trails it. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves the destructive-tool caveats unstated.

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 destructive, two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect but omits irreversibility and post-cancellation behavior. Adequate to call the tool correctly, but thin for a tool that permanently stops payments.

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%, with the id format ('mnd_…') and the provenance of the secret ('returned by create_mandate') already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Stops') and a specific effect ('checks and events for a mandate'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like mandate_status or mandate_events. It never explicitly names the inverse tool (create_mandate), but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

'e.g. after selling the token' supplies one concrete trigger scenario, which implies when the tool is appropriate. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites such as holding the mandate secret, and no routing to alternative siblings.

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