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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the seven-day domain-proof recheck, the 409 concurrency behavior, how credential states deny control, and the blast radius of suppression (current reads, new exports/feed pages, old search cursors, while previously purchased snapshots remain recoverable). The scope guard 'never signs payments' further bounds what the caller should expect.

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?

The action statement is front-loaded, and each following sentence adds non-redundant facts (proof expiry, 409, suppression scope, payment boundary). It is dense and jargon-heavy but has no filler sentences.

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 and zero schema description coverage, it covers auth requirements, concurrency failure mode, and side effects of each flag. It stops short of describing the response payload or how independent flags interact, which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: it maps the three boolean actions and explains revision as an expected-value concurrency token tied to the 409 behavior. It does not explain listing_id's 64-hex format or what happens when booleans are omitted/false, but the functional intent of nearly every parameter is conveyed.

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?

Names a specific resource (listing) and three concrete mutations (hide, suppress branding, revoke access), which an agent can distinguish from read-only siblings like retrieve_listing or search_listings. Slight ambiguity: it frames the credential as an 'X-Mekler-Listing-Control' header while the actual parameter is control_credential, which could momentarily confuse the mapping.

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?

States clear preconditions: a control credential and the expected revision are required, and control is denied for failed, stale, revoked or expired domain proof. It does not name an alternative sibling or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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