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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that no further submissions/bindings are accepted while existing ones stand and may still be paid, that the reason is chained immutably on the record, and that the call is not safe to repeat blindly (idempotency warning). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations omit.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste: the authorization constraint is front-loaded, the state semantics follow, and the WRITES warning is capped at the end. 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 mutation with only a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral facts (irreversibility of accepted bindings, immutability of the reason, non-idempotency). It is only incomplete on the unlabeled 'secret' parameter, which an agent needs to invoke the call at all.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the full parameter burden. It only clarifies that 'reason' is public and chained to the record; 'listing_id' and especially 'secret' (seemingly an auth credential) are left entirely unexplained, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 your listing') plus a scope qualifier ('Funder only'), clearly distinguishing it from generic siblings like withdraw or withdraw_offer. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of 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?

'Funder only' gives an authorization precondition for when this tool applies. However, it never contrasts the use case against the other withdraw-family siblings (withdraw, withdraw_offer), leaving the agent to infer when this specific tool is correct.

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