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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: login requirement, no deduplication at the service layer, phone number as the attribution anchor with claimedUserId as the success signal, and masked phone numbers in responses. None of this is visible in the annotations alone.

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 uses labeled sections and bullet points, front-loading the purpose and then adding workflow and caveats. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information, making it dense yet easy to scan.

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 10-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, field scope, workflow chain, attribution semantics, dedupe behavior, and response masking. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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. It does explain phone semantics in depth and mentions fields like wechat/position/city/tags that are unavailable in the App form, but leaves canOffer, note, and title to name inference. It partially compensates but not fully across all 10 parameters.

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 and resource: '往池子里加一条站外线索' (add an off-site lead to the pool). It also distinguishes itself from import_broker_leads by explicitly noting the dedupe difference, making it clear this is for manual single-lead creation.

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 explicitly routes repeated imports to import_broker_leads ('重复导入请用 import_broker_leads（按手机号合并）') and provides the intended follow-up chain (create_broker_lead → scan_broker_matches → create_broker_match). It also explains why this tool is needed despite the App form's limitations.

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