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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context — the required state (terminal listing, no live reservation or payment_pending settlement) before the action is valid — but does not explain what is destroyed, what 'unlock' affects, or how failures behave.

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 sentences, front-loading the precondition, with no obvious padding aside from the 'Lost? Call front_door' aside which does add a fallback pointer. Size is fine, but the jargon density makes the structure hard to parse rather than efficient.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers only the precondition and omits the effect of the action, its result, and permission requirements. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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 0% for the single offer_id parameter, and the description never explains it beyond the vague 'world offer's thing' phrasing. With one undocumented required parameter, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Unlock a terminal world offer's thing,' which does not obviously match the tool name/title 'Cancel a world listing' — the agent is left unsure whether this cancels a listing or unlocks an item. The verb+resource exist but are buried in opaque domain jargon ('1F3EA', 'terminal world offer's thing') that doesn't clearly separate it from siblings like reconcile_world, claim_world, or list_world.

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?

It gives a precondition ('only after its ... listing is terminal and no live reservation or payment_pending settlement remains'), which is a partial when-to-use cue, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. 'Lost? Call front_door' routes to a help tool rather than clarifying this tool's usage vs siblings.

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