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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the tool returns only a prefilled manual-review URL and creates no fulfillment commitment, clarifying that this preparation step has no side effects.

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 the core action and the return value front-loaded, followed by the negative scope. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (a prefilled manual-review URL) and what is not performed. Combined with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so location, objective, deadline, constraints, and evidence_requirements are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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') and resource ('Japan on-site verification request for a human-executed store check'), plus the output form (prefilled manual-review URL). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never references or distinguishes itself from the sibling check_service_fit.

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?

Gives clear context for use (Japan on-site physical verification of a store) and explicit exclusions of adjacent actions ('does not purchase, submit, hire, pay, or create a fulfillment commitment'). However, it names no alternative tool, so the routing guidance among siblings is incomplete.

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