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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether removal is permanent, whether other overlays shift, or what a failed textId does. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this minimal addition earns a low score rather than a contradiction penalty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations communicate the destructive, non-idempotent nature. However, for a destructive mutation the description should still signal permanence or any caveat about removing text from a listing, which it does not.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that textId comes from the edit summary and listingId from list_listings. The description adds no further meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

"Remove a text overlay" states a specific verb (remove) and resource (text overlay), which is distinguishable from add_text, update_text, and the sticker/shot removal siblings by resource type. The scope is clear but there is no explicit statement separating it from those siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_text (e.g., clearing content) or when text removal is appropriate. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions are stated.

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