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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Pro only' gating requirement, which is useful context not in structured fields, but it doesn't clarify whether the underlying listing persists or whether removal is reversible.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the Pro constraint follows immediately.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers the action, the identifier, and the plan requirement. Only minor gaps (permanence of removal) remain.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents listing_id. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, and the baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb (removes) and resource (a saved listing by id) from the user's vault, so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with save_to_vault or my_vault, but the direction (removal vs. saving/listing) is clear enough to distinguish it.

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?

'Pro only' communicates a real prerequisite for invocation, which is valuable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative (e.g., save_to_vault is its inverse), so usage is only implied.

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