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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful context beyond that: terminated listings omit price and stock fields, and it notes the HGRApi header/channel requirement. It does not cover rate limits or response shape, but those are less critical given the output schema and 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and is reasonably sized. The sentences about supported parameters and HGRApi header resolution are slightly technical and could be tighter, but they still provide useful 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?

Given the output schema and full input-schema coverage, the description includes the key operational details an agent needs: purpose, prerequisite lookup, required channelOAuthId, supported projection and pagination controls, the absence of price/stock fields, and auth handling.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions fields, sortBy, sortDirection, limit and pagination, but it mostly restates capabilities rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists terminated listings scoped to one visible store, and it names the required identifier. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as hgr_get_active_listings or hgr_get_pending_listings.

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 clear prerequisite workflow: resolve the store with hgr_list_channels first, then call this tool with channelOAuthId. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or name sibling alternatives for non-terminated listing queries.

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