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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context that the tool is anonymously callable and read-only in effect (a query returning contact details), but it does not discuss permissions beyond anonymity, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 description is compact and front-loads the anonymous-callable status, the purpose, the return fields, and the usage trigger. The final ontology note is somewhat internal metadata but does not meaningfully bloat the definition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns, when to call it, and that it can be called anonymously. Additional detail about response shape or failure modes is absent, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details, and the empty schema means there is nothing further to document.

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 states a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (好啦商务对接人, business contact for group inspection/business cooperation), and lists the returned fields. It differentiates itself from generic contact CRUD siblings by scoping to business cooperation contacts after a quotation, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling alternatives.

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 a clear usage trigger: call when the user needs manual business follow-up after a quotation. It does not provide explicit when-not conditions or direct sibling comparisons, but the business context is clear enough for an agent to select it over generic contact tools.

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