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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a genuine boundary disclosure not present in the annotations: 'No purchase or shipment is automatically authorized by calling this tool,' which tells the agent the call has a softer side-effect profile than 'request' might imply.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; the authorization caveat is appropriately placed last. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 6 undocumented parameters and a confirm_submission flag implying a two-step confirmation flow, the description leaves an agent without enough information to invoke 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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at 'pickup/delivery parties and instructions' (loosely mapping to contact/task) but says nothing about subject, language, location, or the critical confirm_submission flag that gates actual submission.

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+resource ('collect or deliver a sample') with a clear geographic scope ('in Shenzhen'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related 'shenzhen_errand'.

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 implied usage guidance by telling the caller to 'include pickup/delivery parties and instructions', but never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as shenzhen_errand, nor what prerequisites exist.

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