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

Beyond the annotations it adds the login/auth requirement (【需要登录】), the public visibility of the post, and explicitly warns there is no deduplication so repeated calls create duplicate posts — context that aligns with and enriches idempotentHint=false. It does not describe the response shape, but the behavioral additions are meaningful and non-contradictory.

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 content is front-loaded (auth requirement first) and every clause carries useful guidance. However, it is packed into a single dense semicolon-chained sentence with bracketed markers, which makes it harder to parse than a cleanly segmented version would be.

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 4-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, visibility, duplicate-post behavior, the default type, the sibling alternative, and the follow-up workflow. It omits any note on what is returned, but that is a minor gap given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: it reinforces the COLLAB default while warning against GIG specifically, and instructs the agent to confirm the title/detail text first. These are marginal but genuine additions on top of an already well-described schema.

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 conveys that this posts a public recruitment need on a collaboration goal and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings, telling the agent that other-object needs use create_need and that GIG is the wrong type. The core 'what it does' statement is somewhat implicit ('目标合作人均可公开招募'), leaning on the name/title, but an agent can still identify the resource and scope without opening a schema.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use this for goal recruiting, use create_need for other object needs, don't misuse the GIG type. It also prescribes the surrounding workflow (check claims via get_collaboration_goal(include=recruits), then invite_collaboration_member), leaving little to inference.

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