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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real substance: deletion is irreversible, the listing cannot be resurrected (only recreated), past orders and signed receipts persist, and the call is refused under active delivery. That is 'what gets destroyed and what survives' coverage, not restatement.

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?

Four short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the permanence warning and refusal condition come before the recovery hint. Slightly conversational tone ('for good', 'yourself') but every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side effects on order history, and failure conditions. It stops short of stating the success response or confirmation behavior, which is the only remaining gap.

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% and listing_id is undocumented, but the parameter is a single obvious identifier and the description clarifies it must be one the seller owns ('one of your listings'). It adds ownership scoping without specifying format or how to obtain the id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('remove one of your listings') and scopes it to the seller acting on their own data. The phrase 'for good' and 'list it again as a new listing' implicitly separates it from update_listing, recall, and resell, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives an explicit when (you want it gone permanently), an explicit when-not (refused while an order is still being delivered or held), and the recovery path (re-list as a new listing). That is exactly the routing information an agent needs before choosing between delete, update, and recall.

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