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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: it states the operation 'strips artifacts, pages and rollups across the network' and is 'not something to do irreversibly', implying destructive and irreversible effects, while `destructiveHint` is false. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines the agent's ability to trust either source. Flagged as Annotation Contradiction.

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 is dense but purposeful. Every sentence adds information: the two modes, the 202 response, the human-work aspect, the network-wide effect, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly long but not wasteful.

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 tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description covers critical aspects: the return code, the asynchronous human-in-loop nature, the pricing tier, and the irreversibility warning. It does not detail error cases or follow-up steps, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces overall reliability.

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 only 20% (only `context` has a description), so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of the `visibility` enum (restricted vs delisted) and implies `slug` is the target, but it provides no guidance on `reason` or `contact`. It adds value for the key parameter but leaves others undocumented.

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 states a clear purpose: asking to be shown less or not at all, and it precisely differentiates the two modes (`restricted` vs `delisted`) with concrete effects. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `claim_listing` or `watch_listing` by focusing on visibility control.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (to influence visibility) and warns about irreversibility and human involvement, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving some room for interpretation.

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