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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description merely restates the purpose without revealing any additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loading the core action ('List open collective sourcing projects'). Every sentence adds value (explanation of concept, purpose). No redundant or wasted words.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool does and its business context. However, with no output schema, the agent lacks information about the return format (e.g., fields, pagination). For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but not fully 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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (status and category filters). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists open collective sourcing projects (联拼宝 / Lianpinbao) and explains the concept of multiple suppliers co-selling into shared buyer pools. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_products or find_buyers by focusing on group-buy pool discovery.

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 the use case: find pools to join to access buyer demand. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_products or find_buyers, nor does it provide exclusions.

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