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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: submitting triggers a dedicated consultant follow-up (i.e., the contact details will be used to reach the user). It omits anything about how the ticket is persisted, expected response time, error behavior, or whether contact info is stored.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the prerequisites. The closing enumeration of name/contact/detail is somewhat redundant with the required-parameters list, but overall it is tight and earns its space.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and inputs but says nothing about the result (ticket ID? confirmation message?) or timing, which the agent would need since no output schema documents the return shape.

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 documents all four parameters, including the '至少10字' detail constraint and enum-like requirementType values. The description merely restates the three required fields, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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 description names a specific verb+resource ('提交软件定制开发需求工单') and enumerates the covered scope (小程序/网站/H5/OA/ERP等), so the agent immediately knows this creates a development-request ticket. Among siblings like get_dev_service_catalog and search_bidding_projects, this is unambiguously the submission action rather than a lookup.

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?

Usage is implied: you use it to hand off a custom-development requirement and a consultant follows up. However, it never states when NOT to use it (e.g., for browsing existing services use get_dev_service_catalog) or what prerequisite context is needed, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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