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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses concrete side effects: '这是公开动作，发布即进需求信息流', '没有请求去重，连调两次就是信息流里两条招募帖', and '发之前把 title/detail 原文念给用户确认'. These are critical behavioral traits not captured anywhere else.

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 longer than average but uses clear section markers (【需要登录】【何时用】【组合链】【口径/坑】) that make it scannable. Every section earns its place, but some redundancy exists (e.g., type default appears in both schema description and the text).

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 tool with no output schema and significant side effects, this description covers all necessary context: preconditions (login), public visibility, dedup risk, confirmation requirement, type restriction, and alternative routing. An agent has everything it needs to invoke correctly and to warn the user.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds important extra semantics: '不传 type 默认 COLLAB（合作）；GIG 是兼职，语义不同别乱挑' and reminds that title/detail are user-facing ('原文'). The only gap is goalId, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool name.

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 ('以目标的名义发一条站内招募需求') and its trigger ('目标缺人时'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_need by saying '挂在产品/活动/人上的需求走 create_need，不走这里', which clears up ambiguity.

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 '【何时用】' section tells exactly when to use this tool and adds '任何合作人都能发，不必回头找发起人'. It also names the alternative create_need with an explicit condition for when NOT to use this tool. The '组合链' provides a complete downstream workflow.

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