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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The shelf metaphor weakly implies the product is removed from display rather than destroyed, but the description never says whether the listing survives, whether the action is reversible, or how re-adding works.

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 no waste or filler. Its brevity is efficient but leaves too little substance to earn a top score.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with one required identifier and no output schema. The description should state what happens to the underlying listing, whether the operation can be undone, and how it differs from delete_listing; none of that is 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 100% and listing_id's schema description already names the valid sources (ask_market, search_listings, my_listings) with an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (removing a product) on a specific resource (the shop shelf), so the effect is recognizable at a glance and paired naturally with the shop_add sibling. It does not, however, distinguish itself from delete_listing, which an agent could reasonably confuse with it.

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 when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With a delete_listing sibling present, the agent is left to infer whether shop_remove unlists the product versus deleting it outright.

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