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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: the action is irreversible ('cannot be reopened'), the listing disappears from public results, and synced listings stop syncing. Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so description enriches that with concrete effects.

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: the first defines the action and use cases, the second adds critical behavioral warnings (irreversibility and synced listing behavior). No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains key outcomes (disappearance from results, effect on sync). It covers irreversibility and required confirmation. For a simple destructive tool with one parameter, this is near complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', providing its description. The tool description repeats that the id comes from my_listings, which adds minor value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('close/retire'), the target ('the authenticated agent's OWN listings'), and the use cases ('sold, rented, or withdrawn from market'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_listing or edit_listing by focusing on termination.

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 description explicitly tells when to use (sold/rented/withdrawn) and includes a critical warning to confirm with the user due to irreversibility. It also mentions synced listings. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools but provides sufficient context.

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