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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds meaningful workflow context (a human OZ agent will contact, quote, and import on the user's behalf, gated on consent), which is beyond the annotation set. It still omits what is actually created, timing, and any post-submission behavior, so the addition is moderate rather than rich.

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 core action and the consent guard are front-loaded and there is no filler. The English sentence is mirrored in Vietnamese, which is redundant for a reader of one language but is a plausible localization choice rather than padding.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the workflow but leaves the entire parameter contract undocumented. An agent must guess at the meaning and expected format of most inputs, which is a substantial gap for a non-idempotent submission.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden and does not meet it. It implicitly touches two fields ('this item' ~ tenHang, consent ~ dongYLienHe) but never explains maHs, soLuong, ghiChu, linkSanPham, or maLuotLienQuan, leaving most parameters opaque.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Submit a request') and resource ('OZ staff to quote and import this item on your behalf'), so an agent can immediately tell it initiates an import/quote request rather than a lookup. Among siblings that are almost all tra_* lookup tools this is clearly distinct, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other submission tool gui_phan_hoi.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: 'when the customer agrees to be contacted' / 'Chỉ dùng khi khách đồng ý để OZ liên hệ', which is a genuine when-to-use gate matching the required dongYLienHe=true. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it beyond that single condition.

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