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

Beyond the supplied idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses real behavioral facts: a preview-then-commit handshake bound to a previewHash, a mandatory consent=true, a validation rule that the date must already have passed, an inability to complete an unfinished observation period, retry with the same idempotency key, and that no payment is involved. It does not describe what the response returns or what happens if the previewHash is stale, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 text is dense and largely waste-free, but it is telegraphic, written as semicolon-separated fragments in mixed languages, and opens with an ambiguous '登录'. It conveys a lot per word yet gives the reader no front-loaded statement of what the tool does, so structure rather than length is the problem.

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 state-changing 8-parameter tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers the confirmation workflow, preconditions, and payment note but omits the meaning of 'id'/'note', any description of the return value or previewHash payload, and error behavior. An agent could execute the happy path but would be guessing on edge cases.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it does for the important ones: preview vs preview=false, the previewHash produced by the preview call, the required consent=true, reuse of the same key on retry, and that observationStartedAt must be a past date. It leaves 'id' and 'note' entirely unexplained, and does not clarify how previewHash is obtained.

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 identifies the specific operation: proposing/confirming the actual start date ('实际入职/结果日期') that triggers the observation period ('由另一方确认起算'), matching the two enum actions propose_observation_start and confirm_observation_start. It is recognizable as a distinct operation with no close sibling, but the mixed Chinese/English domain jargon makes the exact resource harder to grasp than a plain verb+resource statement would.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step workflow: call with preview to check the date/period, then call again with preview=false plus previewHash and consent=true after the user confirms. It also states usage preconditions ('日期须接单后已发生' and cannot complete if the period has not elapsed). It stops short of naming any alternative sibling tool for cases where the precondition fails.

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