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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a soft retirement, not a hard delete (ハード削除はしない), that a Bearer API key is mandatory, and that ownership restricts the operation. It does not say whether retirement can be reversed or what happens to listings that reference the SKU.

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?

Three compact clauses: action plus effect first, then auth, then eligibility restriction. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant fact (retire, not delete) is front-loaded.

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?

Covers the essential decision inputs for a destructive-ish mutation: what it does, that it is soft, auth requirements, and eligibility. Without an output schema, the description could still note reversibility and expected response, which is the only remaining gap for a one-parameter tool.

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?

A single parameter (sku) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as the SKU to retire. The description adds only the ownership restriction on that argument (own vs others'/official), which is useful but minimal; 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?

Names a specific verb (取り下げる/retire) and resource (製品/product), and narrows scope to products the caller registered themselves (自分が登録した製品). It also disambiguates the effect from deletion (ハード削除はしない), but never contrasts the action with siblings like update_product or set_visibility, so the boundary with those tools must be inferred.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion: 他者/公式 SKU は不可 (other users' or official SKUs cannot be retired), which tells the agent when not to call it. It also states the auth prerequisite. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when a SKU is not one's own, or when the intent is to change visibility rather than retire.

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