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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds important context: the deletion is soft, implemented via is_active=false, and the tool refuses to act while purchase intents are pending. This goes beyond the structured annotation hints.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical precondition appears immediately after. Ideal density for an AI-readable description.

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 single-parameter, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the operation, the mechanism, and the key failure condition. No significant operational context is missing.

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 schema already provides full coverage for product_id, including its UUID format and the refusal condition. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('soft-delete') and resource ('listing') and states the exact state change (is_active=false). This clearly distinguishes it from related seller tools like seller_update_listing or seller_create_listing.

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 gives clear operational context: it is used to deactivate a listing and will refuse while purchase intents are pending. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the behavior is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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