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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: withdrawal is terminal and irreversible, which is more specific than 'destructive' and directly affects agent decision-making. It does not mention permissions or side effects on related data, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and its effect front-loaded and the irreversibility warning immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with annotations covering the destructive profile and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it safely. Minor omissions remain, such as whether the withdrawn listing is still retrievable via get_listing or what happens to attached photos.

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% with a single documented 'hashid' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the hashid beyond what the schema states — the baseline 3 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?

The description pairs a specific verb (Withdraw) with a specific resource (a listing) and adds the observable effect — removal from public search — which separates it from reversible siblings like update_listing. The terminal-status note further distinguishes it from create_listing/publish_listing, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 states the condition for use (removing a listing from public search), the condition against reuse (cannot be re-activated), and the named alternative path ('create a new listing instead'). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance rather than implied context.

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