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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations — the operation is permitted on any plan — but it never explains the consequences of unpublishing: whether the product data survives, whether the product key remains valid, or how to reverse it via set_product_public.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the availability constraint parenthetically attached. No filler, nothing to cut.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient, but the irreversible-looking nature of unpublishing (visibilility change, published URL going dark, recovery path) is left entirely to inference. A single clause on the effect and reversibility would close the gap.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that productKey is the domain returned by add_product or list_products. The description adds nothing about parameter format or sourcing, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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: 'Remove one of your products from the public directory.' That is unambiguous and, read against the sibling set (set_product_public, add_product), an agent can immediately tell this is the unpublish path. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

'Always allowed, any plan' conveys the key precondition: there is no subscription gate on this operation, which is meaningful versus plan-limited siblings. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names set_product_public as the alternative for republishing.

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