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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, non-destructiveness, and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context: login requirement, archived-lead restoration, skipped self/unavailable accounts, anonymous-user skipping with reporting, and note/tags restrictions. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 the login requirement and core action, and each semicolon-separated clause carries operational detail. The dense single-block structure is efficient but slightly harder to scan than a clean multi-sentence layout.

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 prerequisites, mutation effect, idempotency, skipped-account handling, source filtering, and the next workflow step. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the description is otherwise sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions already cover all 3 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic rules: note must not contain answer-sheet content, tags are only activity identifiers, and userIds come only from signup records that have a userId. This meaningfully supplements the schema, though it is not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb/resource/scope: 收≤20站内用户入本人线索池, and names the follow-up scan_broker_matches. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as create_broker_lead or import_broker_leads, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisite (需要登录) and a follow-up action (收完可scan_broker_matches), but does not state when-not to use it or compare it directly against alternatives like create_broker_lead. Usage is implied by the source constraint (报名单仅取有userId者) rather than explicitly guided.

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