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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value: it discloses that llmMode only reports BYOK status and never returns the key, which is a security-relevant disclosure not captured by any structured field.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the returned-field inventory, then the parameter, then the read-before-write rationale. Dense but every clause carries information; the enumerated field list is long but functional.

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?

Covers purpose, returned fields, the single parameter, and the workflow warning. For a 1-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is largely complete; only slug provenance is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the only schema info is the slug type, so the description's 'slug 必填' is the sole semantic hint. It confirms requiredness but adds nothing about slug format or where the value comes from, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (读岗位配置) and enumerates exactly which config fields are returned, which is more than a tautology. It is distinguishable from sibling list_my_staff (enumerating staff) and patch_staff_config (mutating config), though it doesn't name them.

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 a clear imperative '改之前先读' with the concrete consequence of skipping it (overwriting the customer-tuned version with a guessed persona). Implies patch_staff_config as the follow-up mutation but doesn't name it explicitly.

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