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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral detail: the tool refuses to act without two boolean confirmations following a consequence warning, and the channel/ChannelOAuthId is resolved internally from headers rather than passed explicitly. That is meaningful context beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences with the action and key identifier front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic ("HGRApi Header channel / ChannelOAuthId resolved internally"), which costs a little clarity.

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, the description covers the confirmation gating and internal channel resolution, and an output schema plus full schema coverage handle the rest. Minor gaps remain around what a successful relist returns or whether the relisted product becomes active immediately, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 five parameters are already documented. The description only reiterates that productId is required and that the two confirmation flags gate the call; it adds no format or interpretation value over the schema, which is precisely the baseline-3 situation.

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 and resource ("Relists one terminated listing"), plus the lookup key (visible Product ID) and the scope limitation to a single terminated listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling hgr_post_searchproduct_relist, which appears to perform a similar action, so an agent must infer which one applies.

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 description conveys the precondition workflow (confirm, warn about consequences, then set confirmed and impactConfirmed) which implies when to call it. But it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, and the overlapping relist sibling goes unaddressed.

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