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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: no undo, a refusal condition tied to page membership, the side effect that existing buyer orders are preserved, and a mandatory explicit user confirmation. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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 permanence warning and the put_page precondition are front-loaded well, but the closing 'Never assume a currency' is irrelevant to a tool with no currency parameter and reads as leakage from another tool, adding noise to an otherwise tight description.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers permanence, the refusal precondition, side effects, and confirmation requirements. The stray currency instruction is the only element that muddies an otherwise complete picture.

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 'business' (page handle) and 'productId' (from list_catalog) are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'Say which product' and adds no format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Removes a product from the catalogue for good') and makes the permanence explicit. An agent can immediately distinguish it from update_product and get_product without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('It will REFUSE while the product is still on the page: take its block out with put_page first'), names the alternative tool (put_page), and prescribes a confirmation workflow with the user before calling. This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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