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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does convey that this is a state mutation and flags a publish prerequisite, which is real added value. However, it says nothing about side effects on existing orders, conversations, or buyers, and does not state whether archiving is reversible or what the response contains.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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 simple 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves the '(requires publish)' clause unexplained and omits what archiving does to in-flight orders or buyer visibility — the main risk an agent needs covered.

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?

Two required params at 50% schema coverage: listing_id is documented as a UUID in the schema, and status is enum-constrained to active/archived, so the schema already does most of the work. The description adds only the ownership constraint ('one of the owner's listings') and no semantics for the status transitions.

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 pair (archive / reactivate) and resource (owner's listings), with caller scope made explicit. It is distinguishable from publish_listing and get_listing by the state transition it performs, but it never names a sibling to route against.

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 parenthetical '(requires publish)' hints at a precondition, but it is ambiguous — a permission, a prior publish_listing call, or a status requirement. There is no explicit guidance on when to archive vs reactivate, or when to use publish_listing instead.

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