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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals concrete behavior: already-collected leads are returned unchanged, archived leads are revived, self/unusable accounts are skipped without aborting the batch, and login is required. This is rich behavioral disclosure that materially affects how an agent should call and interpret the tool.

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 but information-dense, organized into labeled blocks (login/basic behavior, combination chain, signup-chain warning, rejection semantics). Every line earns its place, and the core function is front-loaded before the workflow and caveats.

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 mutating batch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: authentication, batch size, idempotence/revival, per-item failure behavior, anonymous-submission handling, and tag conventions. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

Although the schema already documents the three parameters, the description adds decision-relevant semantics: userIds are site-internal users, tags should carry only the activity identifier (example '0921活动'), and note must not contain raw signup answers. These constraints are not inferable from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '把一批站内用户一次收进线索池' (collect a batch of internal users into the lead pool), immediately clarifying this is a batch collect operation with a 20-user cap. The chain references to search/list tools vs scan_broker_matches help distinguish it from adjacent steps, and the batch framing separates it from single-create siblings like create_broker_lead.

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 explicit workflow chains: search_people/list_talent/list_broker_fresh_joiners → collect_broker_leads → scan_broker_matches, and a separate signup-submission chain that only an agent should run. It also states when not to proceed (anonymous submissions without userIds should be skipped and the skip count reported), which is clear when-to-use guidance.

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