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

With annotations only covering readOnly=false and idempotent=true, the description carries real extra weight: domain-proof recheck after seven days, denial on failed/stale/revoked/expired credentials, 409 on concurrent writes, and the precise blast radius of suppression (current reads, new exports/feed pages, old search cursors) versus recoverable purchased snapshots. It even disclaims payment signing, which is meaningful scope information.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the control mechanism and operations before the failure and scope details. Every sentence adds information, though the trailing 'Never signs payments' is slightly tangential.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is behaviorally thorough: failure modes, concurrency, and suppression scope are all covered. The main gap is per-parameter meaning, but the operational context an agent needs to call it correctly is largely present.

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 must compensate. It hints at the credential header and the 'expected revision' (optimistic concurrency) but never explains listing_id, the individual hidden/suppress_branding/revoke booleans, or how revision mismatches are handled, leaving most of six parameters 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 names specific operations on a specific resource: hide a listing, suppress branding, revoke access, all via a named control header and revision. An agent can tell it is a mutation of listing visibility/access, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like retrieve_listing or export_listings.

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?

It gives procedural invocation context (use the X-Mekler-Listing-Control header and the expected revision) and failure conditions, but never states when to choose this tool over an alternative or the prerequisite to obtaining a valid credential. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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