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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful nuance by framing the effect as removal from public discovery (suggesting unlisting rather than hard deletion), but it omits reversibility, whether related tasks/offers are affected, and whether re-listing is possible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the object of the action plus the effect appear immediately. For a destructive mutation it is arguably terse rather than wasteful, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile and the schema fully documents both params, so the essentials are present. However, for a destructive write with no output schema, an agent still cannot tell whether the listing is deleted or merely hidden, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to offers already referenced elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100% and the actorId description already points to list_my_actors, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the ownership constraint ('you own'), not any syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (withdraw) and resource (merchant listing/offer), plus the scope of the effect (removed from public discovery), which distinguishes it from get_offer, create_offer and search_offers. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with cancel_task, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'you own' signals an ownership prerequisite, but there is no statement of when to choose this over cancel_task or other lifecycle siblings, and no exclusions. Minimum-viable implied guidance.

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