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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the async human-worked pipeline (returns 202, applied by a person), the blast radius (strips artifacts, pages and rollups across the network), and the pricing tier (B4 human work, no charge, see apis://prices). One tension: "strips ... across the network" reads as destructive while destructiveHint=false; the surrounding text implies the API call is only a request, but the description never reconciles this explicitly.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then enum semantics, then the async/pricing mechanics — every clause carries information (scope, 202 response, human review, cost tier, doc pointer). No filler or repetition of the tool title.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to call this correctly: the two enum meanings, the async 202/human-worked nature, the network-wide effects, and the cost tier with a pointer to apis://prices. Nothing material is left unexplained for a 5-parameter mutation request.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the `visibility` enum beyond the schema: `restricted` is "out of every ranked view" and "unrated", `delisted` "removes you entirely", which clarifies the downstream consequence rather than just restating the allowed values.

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+resource up front ("ask to be shown less, or not at all") and immediately differentiates the two outcomes: `restricted` keeps name/description/link but is unrated and out of ranked views, `delisted` removes the listing entirely. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like watch_listing, claim_listing or correct_facts without opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition for each enum value (be shown less vs. not at all) and warns it is not for casual/irreversible use. It does not name alternative tools or state when *not* to use this one (e.g. use correct_facts for wrong data, claim_listing for ownership), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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