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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: what is removed (active fill path), what is preserved (listing and retirement history for audit), and the auth requirement. However, it asserts "Idempotent for an already-delisted credit" while annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct conflict that could lead an agent to retry a delist expecting a no-op and instead produce additional side effects.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the operation and its scope lead, followed by the idempotency note and the auth precondition. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the audit-retention and auth details cover the main behavioral questions for a mutation tool. What remains missing is any account of the two required parameters and the resolution of the idempotency conflict, which for a state-changing admin call is a meaningful gap.

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 0% — both credit_id and reason are bare typed fields with no titles beyond their names. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not clarify identifier format, whether reason is free text, constrained, or surfaced in the audit record, or that both are required.

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 and resource (remove a credit from the active fill path) and states the precise semantic scope: the listing and retirement history are retained rather than destroyed. That distinguishes it from list_credit or the retirement/verification siblings, which touch the same credit object without changing its fill eligibility.

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?

"Admin operation" plus "Gateway state-change authentication is required" gives a clear precondition and audience, so an agent knows this is a privileged state change rather than a query. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., a permanent retirement/cancellation tool) or stating when not to delist, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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