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

The description explicitly discloses that this is a write operation ('WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly'), which complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It also reveals that the reason is 'chained on your record' (an immutable audit trail) and that existing bindings remain payable. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by consequences and a clear write-safety warning. 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: who can call it, what it does, what happens to existing submissions/bindings, and the write-safety warning. The only gap is the undocumented 'secret' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'listing_id' implicitly via 'your listing' and 'reason' explicitly ('with a public reason'), but doesn't explain the 'secret' parameter at all. The description adds some meaning for two of three parameters, but the secret parameter remains undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb ('stop your listing'), the resource ('listing'), the actor restriction ('Funder only'), and the public reason requirement. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'withdraw' tool by specifying it's for listings, and from 'post_listing' by being the inverse operation.

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 explicitly says 'Funder only', which is a clear usage condition. It also explains what happens after withdrawal ('No further submissions or bindings are taken; existing ones stand and may still be paid'), giving the agent context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead when...'.

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