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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the login requirement, the exact failure signals (401 unauthenticated; code=40003 with data.bindUrl when the cloud-market instance is unbound), and the side effect that a "self" contact is system-created. It omits duplicate-handling behavior and rate/side-effect details, keeping it below 5.

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 compact blocks – business semantics first, then auth/error behavior – with the login requirement front-loaded in brackets. The "本体: contact → Action: create" line adds little but is only a fragment, so waste is minimal.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, 8-parameter mutation tool, the description covers auth and minimal-create semantics well but never says what is returned (e.g., a contact identifier) and leaves four parameters (gender, marital, birthday, customerID) entirely unexplained. Adequate, not complete.

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: it marks relation as required and explains that name, mobile, and ID number can be supplied later, effectively covering relation, customerName, customerMobile, and IDType. It gives no meaning at all for gender, marital, birthday, or customerID, leaving half of the 8 parameters undefined in both schema and prose.

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 ("创建家属临时联系人" – create a temporary family/dependent contact), which is clearly distinct from siblings like contact_update, contact_get, and contact_profile_save. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

"relation 必填，self 由系统创建；姓名、手机号、证件号可后补" implies a minimal-create usage pattern and explains that only relation is needed up front, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to choose this over contact_update or contact_profile_save, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage is only implied.

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