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

Although annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: listings, key, mandate, story, shop, passkeys and webhook are removed together; order records and receipts remain without the name; deletion cannot be undone; and the tool is refused while money is still moving. This is precisely the consequence-level information an agent needs beyond the annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and immediately lists the affected data. Every sentence adds useful information: retention scope, irreversibility, confirmation phrase, and refusal condition. There is no filler.

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 destructive account-closure tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical decision factors: what gets deleted, what survives, irreversibility, exact confirmation, and the money-movement refusal condition. Nothing essential to correct invocation or risk assessment 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 has 100% description coverage and already documents the sole confirm parameter as requiring the exact words. The description repeats the confirmation phrase but does not add syntax, validation, or format details beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the 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 states a specific verb and resource: closing the whole account, not just a listing. It enumerates exactly what is removed and what remains, which clearly separates it from siblings such as delete_listing and revoke_mandate. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 context for when the tool applies: only when deleting the entire account, and only while no money is moving. It also flags that deletion is irreversible and that re-registration is the way to start fresh. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as export_my_data or delete_listing, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives routing guide.

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