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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this spawns a human task rather than returning a claim, but says nothing about turnaround time, cost, or what confirm_submission gates.

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 free of filler. The disclaimer sentence earns its place as a scoping constraint.

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 described. However, with 0% parameter coverage and a two-step confirmation flow implied by confirm_submission, the agent lacks enough to invoke correctly in one pass.

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 five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. task, contact, subject, language, and especially the confirm_submission flag are left entirely unexplained.

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 concrete verb and resource: requesting a real person to physically search Huaqiangbei for a component or product. The physical-market-search framing distinguishes it from verification siblings like verify_stock_on_site, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use when an offline market search is useful" gives clear triggering context, and "it does not claim stock or price" implicitly routes price/stock questions to request_market_price_check or verify_stock_on_site. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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