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

Annotations already disclose the write nature and non-idempotency (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this 'creates a request for review' and 'does not automatically schedule or guarantee that a visit will occur', which tells the agent the call is a non-final submission whose outcome is uncertain. It stops short of mentioning the confirm_submission step or any auth/handling details.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the important caveat second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 5-parameter write tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description omits parameter meaning, does not mention the confirm_submission gate, and does not route between this and submit_supplier_check. Having an output schema excuses it from explaining returns, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It gives no meaning for 'request', 'contact', 'language' or 'confirm_submission', and 'supplier' is only obliquely covered by the list of visit targets. An agent must guess what to put in three required fields.

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 and resource: 'Request a human physical visit to a supplier, seller, office, shop, market counter, warehouse or address in Shenzhen.' That is far more precise than a generic 'on-site check' and an agent can tell it is a request/visit tool rather than a lookup. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-namesake sibling submit_supplier_check, so the boundary between them stays implicit.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With submit_supplier_check and get_supplier_check_capabilities in the sibling set, an agent has no stated rule for choosing this tool over those; the only implied trigger is 'you want a physical visit'. No prerequisites or sequencing are mentioned.

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