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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail: the listing is 'immediately hidden from search results', hinting at a soft-delete visibility effect. It does not say whether this is reversible, permanent, or what happens to existing orders referencing the listing.

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 with no filler, and the destructive action is stated up front. Efficient, though the second sentence could have carried more load (reversibility, ownership) rather than only search visibility.

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?

Annotations carry the destructive signal and there is no output schema to explain, so the core is covered. However, for a destructive marketplace mutation the description omits authorization/ownership requirements and the effect on related orders, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding to call it.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Listing ID to remove'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 + resource + scope ('Remove a supplies/materials listing from the marketplace'), which is far better than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent marketplace_update_listing or marketplace_get_listing siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as ownership of the listing or whether it must be un-ordered/un-sold, and no alternatives named (e.g., when to prefer deactivation over deletion). The agent must infer all of this.

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