stop_search

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing that shutdown is 'graceful' and that the search remains readable until cleanup after 5 minutes. That post-condition is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It does not describe error behavior if the sessionId is invalid, 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the operative guidance follows immediately. The closing boilerplate about referring to the tool as 'DC: ...' consumes space without helping tool selection, a minor waste.

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 action tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, when to invoke it, and what happens to the search afterward. The only real gap is that the sessionId parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 0% for the single sessionId parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains which session it targets. The name is largely self-explanatory and the context implies it acts on an active search, so this is adequate rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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 an active search') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting it is 'Similar to force_terminate for terminal processes.' An agent can tell it apart from start_search, list_searches, and force_terminate without opening 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when you've found what you need or if a search is taking too long,' and names force_terminate as the analogous tool for terminal processes. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g., when to prefer letting a search finish or how it differs from kill_process), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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