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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that: it says withdraw stops gateway serving while leaving the published version untouched, restore requires no new review, and the operation is owner-only. Reversibility, blast radius, and auth requirement are all disclosed.

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 primary action is front-loaded and the disambiguation against the sibling is held to the final sentence. Some ALL-CAPS emphasis and parenthetical restatement ('This is the LIVE listing') add slight bulk without new 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Ownership requirement, action semantics, side effects, and the nearest alternative are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the enum values are already documented; baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning on top — what 'withdraw' does to serving and that the underlying version survives — which the schema text alone does not convey.

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+resource pair ('take YOUR OWN live agent DOWN... or put a withdrawn one back UP') with the two action modes named. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling findagent_withdraw_version, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives explicit per-action conditions: withdraw applies to a PUBLISHED listing, restore applies to a previously-withdrawn one. It also names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ('withdraws a version still awaiting review and never touches what is live').

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