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

The description discloses that only externally visible people are returned and that current role, education, and work history fields are included, which is useful behavioral context. However, there are no annotations, and it does not mention pagination, result thresholds, filtering behavior, or other operational side effects.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists criteria and return fields.N Oc extra filler sentences. The list of criteria is long but necessary given the tool's complexity.

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 13-parameter search tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, this single sentence is under-specified:it covers main int aims but leaves pagination, parameter relations, requiredness, and edge-case behavior to inference. Output flexible exists, so return-format omission is less harmful.

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 for 13 undocumented parameters. It lists semantic search dimensions that map roughly to keyword parameters, but it never names specific parameters such as keyword, person_type_keyword, education_keyword, is_on_time, or future. Parameters like cursor, page_size, and fields are completely unaddressed.

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 action ('搜索人物画像') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, person type, region, company, investment institution, education, work history). It clearly identifies the resource and purpose, though it does not distinguish it from siblings like search_investors or get_person_profile.

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?

The description implies this tool is for searching person profiles by broad criteria, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of search_investors, get_person_profile, or other sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints are provided.

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