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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: under investigation the listing is hidden rather than removed, with a stated result shape (`deleted: false, hidden: true`) and a reason. It does not say whether a genuine deletion is permanent or recoverable, nor whether special permissions are needed, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional behavior second. Every clause carries information; the only minor cost is the inline result-snippet formatting, which is dense but informative.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important surprise (soft-delete/hide with rationale). Gaps remain around permanence, recovery, and permission requirements, but the core behavior an agent needs is present.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It only implies that `id` identifies 'one of the shop's listings'; it gives no format, source, or identifier-type guidance beyond that inference.

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: 'Delete one of the shop's listings.' An agent can immediately tell this removes a listing rather than mutating its status. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (set_listing_status/update_listing), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent infers this is the tool for removal, not for hiding or editing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over set_listing_status or update_listing, though the described hidden-fallback behavior implicitly contrasts it with a status change.

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