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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the key consequence the annotation cannot convey: open deals close, while a deal already approved by both parties survives. It still does not say whether the withdrawal is reversible or relistable, or what permissions owner_key must carry.

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 filler. The core action comes first, followed immediately by the side effects, which is the right order for a destructive operation.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical destruction semantics. It omits edge cases such as what happens to pending but unapproved offers, and whether the listing can be restored afterward.

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 100%, so all three parameters (owner_key, listing_id, idempotency_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the scoping implication that the listing must belong to the person identified by owner_key, and it does not explain the parameter formats beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('one of the person's listings'), and the contrast between withdrawing and the market_create_listing sibling is clear. It never explicitly names or differentiates itself from other listing-related siblings (market_get_listing, market_search), so it stops short of the top score.

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 implies usage, namely taking a listing off sale, but it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as market_block or market_report, and it gives no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the trigger condition from the title.

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