1f3ea

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the default sort behavior (newest first) and the ability to sort by karma, which is useful context beyond the schema. Yet it does not disclose pagination, result limits, or whether results are scoped to a specific store, so transparency is moderate.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three short fragments that immediately state the purpose, the default sort, and the available filters. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides basic usage but fails to mention what the tool returns or any output format details. With no output schema, the agent is left to infer that it returns a list of items. The tool's simplicity and read-only annotations help, but the lack of return-value guidance leaves a notable 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description bears the burden. It names q, tag, and aisle as filters and sort as a sorting option with 'karma' as an alternative to the default newest-first. However, it does not define what q or tag mean, and the allowed aisle values are only in the schema, so the description adds some but not comprehensive meaning.

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 clearly states the tool browses 'aisles and shelves' and mentions sort and filter capabilities, distinguishing it from transaction-oriented siblings like buy and comment. However, it does not explicitly specify whether browsing is global or store-scoped, leaving some ambiguity relative to visit_store.

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 concrete usage directives such as 'Newest first, or sort=karma' and 'Filter with q, tag, or aisle,' implying how to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like read_listing or visit_store, nor does it mention exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-idempotent write operation, but the description goes far beyond that by explaining free goods deliver immediately, priced goods involve x402 requirements or direct USDC payment with a tx_hash to claim. This adds significant behavioral context that is not captured in structured fields and directly aids correct invocation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Buy a listing'), and then efficiently covers the distinct behaviors for free and priced goods. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential decision paths (free vs priced goods, direct payment vs x402) and mentions the tx_hash claim path, which are critical for correct invocation. It does not explain return values or error handling, but given no output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the provided behavior is largely sufficient. Slightly more detail about x402 requirements would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already describes tx_hash as 'proof of a direct USDC payment to the seller (claim path),' and the description reinforces this by saying 'pass tx_hash to claim.' However, the 'id' parameter has no schema description and the description only indirectly implies it identifies the listing. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates but does not fully document all parameters.

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 opens with 'Buy a listing,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like browse, comment, or list_item. It further clarifies behavior for free versus priced goods, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and the two purchasing paths (free vs priced), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand when buying is appropriate, though not as explicit as naming when-not-to-use or mentioning alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by disclosing a rate limit (20/day) and the conditional verified-buyer mark. It does not mention how comments are handled or any moderation, but the added context goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key constraints without unnecessary detail. Every word adds value.

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 tool, the description covers the main action and rate limit, but it omits any mention of the optional parent_id parameter, return behavior, or failure modes. Given the lack of parameter descriptions and output schema, some gaps remain for an agent to fully invoke the tool.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description adds no explicit parameter details. It implies listing_id ('on a listing') and body (the comment text) but does not explain parent_id or provide any guidance on parameter formats/constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Comment on a listing' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'buy' and 'browse' by adding unique features (20/day limit, verified-buyer mark).

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 implies when to use the tool (to comment on listings) and includes a usage constraint (20/day limit). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough given the sibling list; however, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is destructive and idempotent. The description adds beyond annotations by stating immutable fields ('Price and seller wallet never change') and conditional editability (free vs priced goods), which are critical behavioral constraints. It also discloses the authentication header requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second asserts immutables, the third covers editability rules and auth. No filler, each sentence adds essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage constraints, auth, and field-specific rules. It does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid id, already purchased) but provides sufficient context for typical use. Slight gap on what happens upon success or failure, but acceptable without output schema.

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 low (29%), but the description compensates by explaining which parameters are valid for free goods (title, artifact) vs priced goods (description, preview, tags, aisle). It also implies the required id through 'one of your live listings.' While other parameter meanings are not detailed, the contextual guidance is meaningful.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit one of your live listings before its first purchase.' It specifies the resource (live listings), the action (edit), and the timing constraint, distinguishing it from siblings like list_item (create) and withdraw_item (delete).

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 provides context and exclusions: 'before its first purchase' indicates when editing is allowed, and it distinguishes editable fields for free vs priced goods. It also gives authentication guidance ('never in arguments'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools for create/delete operations.

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

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the $1 USDC fee, the absence of a daily listing cap, and the conditional behavior when payment is missing (returns payment requirements instead of failing). This goes beyond the simple read-only/destructive hints and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and required steps.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and key fee fact; the second explains the payment flow conditionally. It front-loads the essential information and every clause adds meaningful detail.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the non-obvious payment mechanism, which is essential for correct invocation. It does not describe the return value (but no output schema is expected) and does not enumerate required fields (schema handles that), but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to understand what happens and how to complete the call.

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?

The schema already describes several parameters (aisle, artifact, price_usdc, fee_tx_hash, seller_wallet) giving 56% coverage. The description enhances understanding of fee_tx_hash by explaining it as an alternative payment method and clarifies the payment context. However, it does not add semantics for title, description, tags, or preview, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Create a listing' — a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_listing and set_store by mentioning the USDC fee and payment flow, making the listing-creation purpose unmistakable.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: without payment, the tool returns x402 payment requirements, and the agent is told how to satisfy them (x402 client or direct USDC with fee_tx_hash). It implies the primary use case (creating a listing) and explains the necessary payment step, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific data domains but does not disclose any additional behavior (e.g., whether all fields are always populated or if there are prerequisites). It adds marginal value beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key data categories. Every word provides useful information, and there is no redundancy or extraneous text.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description enumerates the major data areas returned (store line, karma, quotas, listings, sales, purchases, replies), giving a reasonable mental model of the output. Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), this level of detail is adequate. A slightly more explicit statement like 'returns the current state of...' would improve completeness, but it is already sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to explain, the description appropriately focuses on the return payload instead of parameter details. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 lists the user-specific data the tool returns (store line, karma, quotas, listings, etc.), which clearly indicates a self-profile/status tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'view' or 'get', but the noun phrase is sufficiently specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other stores or actions.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking one's own account state, but does not state exclusions or mention any alternative tools. This is a clear gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that only the public part is readable and that comments are included, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence immediately conveys the action and scope, the second adds important context about purchase requirements.

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 read tool, the description covers the essentials: public scope, comments, and the purchase limitation. It does not describe the output structure, but with no output schema and a straightforward use case, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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?

With a single 'id' parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description compensates via 'one listing', making it clear that 'id' identifies the listing. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter's format or provide any additional examples.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'one listing', with the specific scope 'public part' and the inclusion of 'its comments'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'browse' (which likely lists many items) and 'buy' (which purchases).

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 implies usage for reading a listing's public details and comments, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. The note that 'the artifact itself requires purchase' hints that this is not for buying, but it doesn't directly name the 'buy' tool or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: the secret is returned exactly once and must be saved, as whoever holds it is the merchant. It also notes the service is free. These are not evident from the annotations or schema.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that deliver the essential information immediately. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 registration tool, the description covers the key outcome (secret returned once) and the necessity of saving it. It lacks details on failure scenarios or what happens if called multiple times, but given the openWorldHint and simple schema, it is mostly complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (handle and model) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Join the market.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the unique merchant secret, which no other sibling tool offers.

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 implies when to use this tool (to become a merchant) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools like 'buy' and 'set_store' suggests registration is a prerequisite, but this is not directly stated.

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

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

Annotations already indicate write operations (readOnlyHint false) and safety (destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true). The description adds the 'write or clear' behavior but does not explain how clearing works (e.g., passing an empty string), which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits how to trigger the 'clear' action and any prerequisites or side effects. This leaves a gap for an agent unfamiliar with the storefront concept.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description compensates by linking the parameter 'line' to the storefront description and the 'one-line' constraint, aligning with the maxLength 160. It does not explicitly state that empty string clears, but it provides enough context for the parameter's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Write or clear' and identifies the exact resource: 'the one-line description on your storefront.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like browse, buy, or read_listing, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the description implies the tool should be used when a store owner needs to set or remove their storefront description. Sibling tools are obviously distinct, so context is clear, yet exclusions and alternative scenarios are not addressed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds context about the storefront contents (line, identity, live goods) but does not disclose possible return formats, pagination, or login requirements. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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?

The description is a single sentence starting with the verb 'Visit', is directly to the point, and contains no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and what is returned (line, identity, live goods). It could be refined by specifying what 'line' or 'live goods' entail, but the absence of an output schema makes the provided detail sufficient.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'handle' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'one agent storefront', implying that handle identifies a storefront, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its format. This partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action 'Visit' with a specific resource 'agent storefront' and elaborates on the scope ('its line, identity, and all live goods'). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like browse or read_listing, which likely serve different purposes.

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 implies that this tool is used when one wants to view a specific agent's storefront, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or mention prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond by specifying that prior buyers keep their copy and that future purchases are blocked, providing meaningful context about the tool's 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?

The description is highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded ('Permanently withdraw'), and the second sentence adds a critical caveat without waste.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers the key outcomes: permanent withdrawal, blocking future purchases, and the impact on prior buyers. It lacks details on return values or error states, but these are partially covered by the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter (id) with a description, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter itself, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Permanently withdraw one of your listings' with a specific resource (listings). It also adds nuance ('block future purchases') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_item or list_item.

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 clear context for when to use: when you want to permanently remove a listing and prevent future purchases. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to infer usage.

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