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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and delivers: three mutually-unacquainted real people, the on-site process, a report deliverable, the China-only geographic scope, and crucially the cost implication '下单会从账户余额扣款' (order deducts from account balance). This is substantial behavioral context for an annotation-less tool, though it omits details like cancellation or refund policy.

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?

The description is a single dense but efficient paragraph that front-loads the core action (three people on-site verification) before the process detail, use cases, and charge note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff, though it could benefit from light structuring given its length.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the action, the process, the on-site scope, the deliverable ('出一份报告'), and the cost. It does not detail the report's format or turnaround time, and parameter details are left to the schema, but nothing essential to placing an order 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents all five parameters including the at-least-one-of-address/url constraint and the budget default behavior. The description reinforces the budget-to-speed relationship and the balance-deduction consequence, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing (send three strangers to physically verify a location) and details the exact process: photographing the signboard, entering to ask a question, and producing an independent judgment report. It clearly targets the verification-of-existence use case and is readily distinguished from its sibling get_verification_result, which is about retrieving a completed result rather than placing the order.

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 explicit use-case framing: it's '适合回答...这类只有到过现场的人才知道的问题' (suitable for questions only answerable by someone on-site), naming existence, operating status, and sign-address match as trigger conditions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or an explicit contrast with get_verification_result, but the on-site requirement is a clear selection criterion.

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