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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing soft-delete semantics (isActive=false) and, importantly, that existing private share links survive the operation. It does not cover ownership requirements or what happens when the strategy was never published.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect and followed by the nuances an agent needs (share links, soft-delete, identifier options). The final sentence largely duplicates information the schema already carries, which is the only wasted space.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state transition, the non-effect on share links, and identifier flexibility. Gaps are the lack of return/error behavior and the unresolved overlap with remove_marketplace_publication.

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 all three UUID parameters and their 'fastest lookup'/'alternative' roles are already documented. The closing sentence restates that a strategy/aiStrategy ID will be used to look up the listing, adding only a modest amount of resolution behavior 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Removes a strategy from the public marketplace') and immediately defines the resulting state (private, non-discoverable). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_marketplace_publication, which sounds nearly identical in intent.

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 implied by the publish/unpublish lifecycle, and the description explains which identifier to supply, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The presence of both unpublish_from_marketplace and remove_marketplace_publication makes the absence of routing guidance a real cost to an agent.

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