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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), it discloses auth requirement, that it is free, the concrete effects (leaves search, market, and sale), that existing readers retain access, that an in-validation revision is unaffected, and that there is no undo. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Withdraw a published unit... every version of it') and then layers consequences. The long semicolon-joined sentence packs a lot but each clause carries distinct, useful information; only slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, a single trivial param, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, effects, irreversibility, and the sibling alternative.

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% and the single 'id' param only carries a UUID pattern, so the schema adds little. The description compensates with the key semantic that any version's id is acceptable, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 precise verb (withdraw/retire) and resource (a published unit you authored, all versions), plus scope details like 'any version's id will do'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as revise_knowledge and submit_knowledge.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('only when the unit is wrong or should no longer be offered') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('to correct a unit, use revise_knowledge instead'). The revision-in-validation caveat further sharpens the boundary.

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