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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description does the heavy lifting and delivers genuinely useful traits: login required, public visibility of the recruitment to all collaborators, and critically, no request deduplication — repeated calls create duplicate posts. It stops short of describing failure/error behavior or rate limits, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Semicolon-delimited fragments with no filler — every clause carries a constraint, warning, or routing rule. The ordering is slightly off since it opens with a login prerequisite rather than the purpose, but it is dense and readable.

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 write tool with public side effects, it covers prerequisites, the duplicate-post hazard, type selection, and the downstream workflow, which is close to complete. The main omissions are what the call returns (no output schema exists) and any explanation of the required goalId parameter.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the COLLAB default for `type` and adds a quality instruction for title/detail ("先确认title/detail原文"), but goalId has no explanation in either the schema or the description, so the remaining gap is not compensated.

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 communicates that this creates/posts a recruitment need tied to a goal ("重复调用重复发帖", "目标合作人均可公开招募") and clearly separates it from create_need ("其他对象需求用create_need") and from the GIG type. The plain verb+resource statement is carried mostly by the title, and the description leads with a login prerequisite instead of the purpose, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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/when-not rules: default to COLLAB and do not misuse GIG, use create_need for other-object needs, and it prescribes the follow-up workflow (get_collaboration_goal(include=recruits) to verify claims, then invite_collaboration_member). Alternatives and the routing condition are named outright, so nothing is left to inference.

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