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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('prefilled manual-review URL only') and enumerating the side effects it explicitly does NOT perform, which is exactly the context an agent needs before treating this as a non-committing step.

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 zero filler; the core action and its Japan/human-execution scope are front-loaded before the disclaimers. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return value (a prefilled manual-review URL). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage for inputs, an agent has what it needs; only the sibling-routing detail 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including deadline, constraints, evidence_requirements) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'Japan' locality framing and nothing about parameter format or interaction, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Prepare'), resource ('Japan on-site verification request'), and scope ('human-executed store check'), which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_verification_request, leaving the prepare-vs-create boundary to inference.

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 negative scope ('does not purchase, submit, hire, pay, or create a fulfillment commitment') usefully implies this is a pre-commitment preparation step. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like create_verification_request or check_service_fit, so the routing decision is only implied.

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