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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: confirmed and impactConfirmed must both be true after warning the user, and channel context is required. The final sentence about the HGRApi header is somewhat vague but still adds auth-related context.

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 action and ID selection, then states the confirmation gates. It is appropriately short, though the final sentence about the HGRApi header is a bit awkward and less clear than the rest.

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 mutation with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, this is mostly complete. An agent knows the action, the identifier choice, and the confirmation prerequisites, though the relationship to similar terminate/remove siblings remains unstated.

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 parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description restates the visible Product ID versus pending listing id choice and confirmation requirements, but it adds little semantic detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: removing or retiring a single listing, with distinct ID paths for active/terminated versus pending listings. It is more specific than the title alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings such as hgr_terminate_listing or hgr_post_searchproduct_removelisting.

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 implies when to use the tool and which identifier to supply for active versus pending listings, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings like hgr_terminate_listing or hgr_post_searchproduct_removelisting.

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