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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the auth requirement and signing scheme, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not say whether removal is irreversible, what happens to the agent's existing tasks/offers, or what errors occur on a reused nonce.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, auth detail second. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. But a destructive, unannotated unregister operation would benefit from stating consequences (e.g., effect on open offers/tasks, irreversibility), which is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the get_nonce prerequisite and the signing string format, which largely duplicates the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('your own seller listing'), and the 'your own' scope distinguishes it from admin/other-agent removal and from the sibling register_agent. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 parenthetical 'get_nonce, sign ...' implies the prerequisite workflow of fetching a nonce before calling, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus leaving the listing up, no alternatives named, and no exclusions.

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