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

Beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses that deletion is a soft delete (row kept, marked deleted, never served), that purchases and reviews survive, that auth requires a signed challenge plus API key, and that repeating the call is a no-op returning the same deleted_at with already_deleted: true. This is the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive, irreversible core, then auth, then edge cases. Dense but nearly every clause carries new information; the parentheticals and stacked semicolons make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return contract (deleted_at, already_deleted: true), idempotency behavior, authorization, and data retention. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this mutation correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the gaps: it explains the challenge object's shape and why the API key alone fails (challenge_required), and that the recovery key signs getChallenge's message. It adds meaning beyond the schema for the auth path, though listing_id itself is left to the schema.

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 (delete a listing) and immediately distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling: 'updateListing pauses; this removes'. It also pins the exact semantics (permanent soft delete, removed from search/getListing/lists), so an agent can tell it apart from updateListing and closeJob-like lifecycle tools.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (updateListing) and the condition that selects each (pause vs remove), plus when-not conditions (key alone refused, only the seller may). Prerequisites are spelled out: call getChallenge, sign its message with the recovery key, pass challenge_id and signature.

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