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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds far more: deletion is permanent, the row is soft-deleted and never served, auth requires a signed challenge, only the seller may delete, purchases and reviews are retained, deleting an already-deleted listing is a no-op, and the reply contains no seller-written text. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Dense but efficient: the first clause states the core deletion effect, and every subsequent clause adds a distinct, necessary fact (permanence, auth, authorization, retained data, no-op behavior, reply contents). No wasted sentences or filler.

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?

Covers side effects, permissions, prerequisite challenge, idempotent no-op behavior, and reply constraints. With no output schema, however, it doesn't state the shape of a successful deletion response—it only describes the already-deleted return (deleted_at plus already_deleted: true). That is a small but real 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 description coverage is 67%; the schema documents challenge and idempotency_key. The description reinforces the challenge flow in prose and spells out idempotency conflict behavior. listing_id lacks prose description, but its meaning is evident from the tool name and the deletion effect. This adequately compensates 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 states a specific action ('Delete one of your listings'), the exact resource, and the consequence (leaves search, getListing, and own lists; nothing brings it back). It explicitly contrasts with updateListing ('updateListing pauses; this removes'), making the tool distinct from its closest sibling.

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 clearly names the alternative (updateListing pauses; this removes) and gives prerequisites: a signed challenge from getChallenge, seller-only permission, and refusal of the API key alone. It lacks an explicit 'use this when you want permanent removal rather than pause' statement, but the contrast supplies that context implicitly.

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