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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is being removed (a listing created via mcp_list or app_publish), but does not describe permissions, reversibility, or required proof.

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 short sentence with zero wasted words. The action and target are front-loaded, even if the overall definition is under-specified elsewhere.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter documentation. The description is too thin: it does not explain the required proof, the key parameter, or the effect on the listing beyond removal.

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 three parameters (key, name, proof). The description only vaguely refers to 'a listing' and does not explain what name, key, or proof should contain, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action (take off / remove) and the resource (a listing made with mcp_list or app_publish), which distinguishes it from the creation siblings it names. However, it does not mention the closely related listing_close sibling, leaving some ambiguity about removal vs. closing.

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 phrase 'a listing you made with mcp_list (or app_publish)' implies when to use this tool, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives such as listing_close. Usage context is present but incomplete.

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