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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the tool calls the platform LLM, writes records, may schedule people in the background, sends notifications, requires the gray-release flag, is rate-limited per user, and—critically—has no persistent request deduplication key, so retries can duplicate. This matches and enriches the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core function first, then side effects and prerequisites, then failure handling and verification. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and front-loads each caveat before its consequence. No filler or restatement of the title or schema.

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 still covers the full post-call flow: how to verify receipt via get_my_dispatch, what to do in the FILLING state, how to handle rate-limit, unclear-result, and timeout cases, plus prerequisites (login, gray-release flag) and side effects. Given the tool's complexity and non-idempotency, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does meaningfully: it tells the agent that the single text parameter should contain the user-confirmed current status/goal on first call and the appended report on later calls. It stops short of specifying the expected content structure or format, which is why it isn't a 5, but for a bare free-text parameter this is solid compensation.

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 and resource—handing user-confirmed status/goals to the dispatch scheduler (独行录排) for arrangement—and explains the two call modes: first call builds a path, later calls append reports and reschedule unaccepted portions. This clearly separates it from dispatch siblings like accept_dispatch_arrangement, decline_dispatch_arrangement, set_dispatch_outcome, and skip_dispatch_step, all of which are distinct actions in the same workflow.

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 when-to-use context (after the user confirms status/goals, with distinct first-vs-subsequent behavior) and explicit when-not-to: do not retry immediately after a rate-limit warning, and do not auto-resend on unclear results or timeout. It names the verification alternative (get_my_dispatch's reports) and specifies the FILLING state means wait-then-query, leaving nothing to inference.

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