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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: submission goes to manual licence and booking-link review, is not immediately public, requires an authorized merchant, and is geographically restricted. It does not explain why destructiveHint is set or what the caller receives back, so it falls short of 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core action and its review workflow are front-loaded, followed by the visibility and geographic constraints. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a 10-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, so the description needs to do much more. It omits parameter formats, the actor prerequisite beyond a passing mention, error/validation behavior, and what happens after review, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 only 10% (just actorId), so the description must carry the burden for the other 9 required parameters and largely does not. It only implicitly touches licence and booking_url ('licence and booking-link review') and the type enum ('accommodation/restaurant'), leaving price, capacity, location, details, and description formats unexplained.

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 (submit) and resource (authorized merchant listing) plus the scope of what it produces (a listing for manual licence/booking-link review). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_task or create_actor. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly name 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?

The description gives a hard eligibility constraint ('Hong Kong accommodation/restaurant only') and workflow context ('Not immediately public', manual review), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as create_task, nor what prerequisites (authorization, existing actor) must be met.

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