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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful semantics: 'clean' means removing the listing record without resubmitting, and the confirm_required short-circuit means nothing runs without approval. It stops short of saying whether the cleared state is recoverable or what a successful 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?

Three tight sentences with the resource and differentiator front-loaded, followed by the use case and the confirm requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, the safety gate, and the targeting options, while annotations carry the safety flags. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though return shape is unspecified as expected without an output schema.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents confirm, item_ids, all_items, and marketplace_id. The description restates the item_ids/all_items targeting choice and the confirm gate, adding little beyond structured data; project_id receives no mention in either place.

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 ('clear the chosen items' listing record in Koongo') and adds a key differentiator against the resubmit siblings: 'without a new submit'. The sibling tools are never named directly, so the agent must infer that clean_resubmit_marketplace_items is the alternative, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use case ('reset specific items before submitting them') and a prerequisite ('Needs confirm:true after the user agrees'). It does not explicitly exclude or name the resubmit variants, so the agent gets context but must reason about which clean_* variant to pick.

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