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

The description's 'submit a Builder task' matches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so no contradiction, and it adds the fixed collector identifier. However it does not elaborate on what the destructive write actually does (creates a task record), what authentication is required, or that execution is asynchronous, leaving most behavioral detail to the annotations alone.

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?

It is front-loaded and only two sentences, but the first sentence is padded with near-synonym keyword lists ('Airbnb房产信息、Airbnb房源信息、Airbnb房源搜索、Airbnb product、Airbnb homes') that repeat the same concept and add length without new meaning.

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 non-idempotent, destructive task-submission tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose but omits what the call returns (e.g., a task id) and how it relates to the task-status/result siblings (scraper_task_status, scraper_task_result), which the agent needs to complete the workflow.

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 fully documents country, file_name, and searchurl. The description adds only the fixed collector id tying searchurl to 'airbnb_product_by-searchurl', which is marginal value over the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb+resource: '提交 Airbnb房产信息采集 Builder 任务' (submit an Airbnb property-collection Builder task) with a fixed collector id, which clearly distinguishes it from data-returning product siblings like zillow_product or amazon_product. The first sentence, however, is largely a keyword/trigger list rather than a statement of purpose, diluting the clarity.

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 explicitly states trigger conditions ('当用户需要 Airbnb房产信息…与采集、抓取、爬取、获取、提取等动词组合时触发'), giving the agent a clear selection context. It names no alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the 5 tier, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete.

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