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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers key behavior: 'A human at OCKLU reads every request' tells the agent this is a human-reviewed submission, not an automated action, and that data leaves the agent's context. It still omits what happens to submitted data, expected response, or any rate/abuse limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the catalog exception. 'We build digital products from real requests' is mildly promotional but does convey why the request matters, so little is wasted.

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 an unannotated 7-parameter submission tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers intent, the human-review outcome, and the optional collaboration path. It could say more about response handling, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 all seven fields with inline descriptions; baseline is 3. The description only lightly reinforces the collaboration fields ('offer data you can share for a collaboration') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (tell/submit) and resource (a need/request) and notes it applies even when the need is 'not in our catalog,' which implicitly separates it from the catalog/browsing siblings. Clear action, though it never names which sibling to use instead.

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?

'even if it is not in our catalog' gives a usable triggering condition and sets up the contrast with lihat_katalog/detail_produk, and 'Optionally offer data you can share for a collaboration' points at the collaboration path. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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