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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real context beyond that: deactivating hides the listing, existing buyers retain their downloads, a user confirmation is required by default, and a Cotlet API key is needed. The confirmation and credential requirements are genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description repeats itself materially: 'Past buyers keep their downloads' appears twice and the active/inactive meaning is stated in two separate sentences. Redundancy costs space without adding information, and the important confirmation warning is buried at the end.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state semantics, the side effect on existing buyers, the confirmation requirement, and the auth requirement. Nothing critical is missing, though it would benefit from noting where product_id comes from relative to siblings.

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 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema ('true to sell it, false to hide it' and 'Product ID from list_products'). The description restates the active/inactive meaning but adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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 ('Make a listing active or inactive') and clarifies both states as 'for sale' vs 'hidden'. An agent can distinguish it from update_product because it only toggles status. It falls short of 5 because it never names a sibling or scope boundary explicitly.

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 implies usage via the listing-status purpose and mentions that confirmation is on by default, but it never states when to prefer this over update_product or list_products. The condition selecting it is inferred rather than stated, so it sits at minimum-viable.

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