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 that this is a WRITE operation and that endpoints are marked 'delisted' rather than destroyed, which usefully implies a soft state change. It says nothing about reversibility, what happens if the listing does not exist or the caller is not the owner, or what the call returns.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation and its effect lead, and the auth requirement and WRITE flag follow. The trailing 'WRITE operation' partly repeats what 'Remove' already implies, which keeps it from 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and auth, which is the core an agent needs. It is still thin on failure modes and response behavior, which matters for a destructive-style operation.

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 the schema already documents chain, agentId, and access_token, making 3 the baseline. The description only reinforces the access_token parameter by clarifying it must be an owner JWT, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's 'Gateway JWT — owner auth (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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a listing (delist)') plus the side effect on endpoints ('mark its endpoints as delisted'), which separates it from actora_listing_set and actora_listing_get. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 supplies a precondition ('Requires access_token (owner JWT)') that effectively gates usage to listing owners, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to any alternative tool such as actora_listing_set for modifying rather than removing a listing.

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