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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: publishing is public, appears immediately in the feed, undergoes background async moderation, triggers automatic vector matching and push to managers, and requires user confirmation before posting. No contradiction with 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?

Description is organized into clear labeled sections (【需要登录】【写好它】【挂载】), front-loads the core behavior, includes useful examples, and every sentence adds practical guidance. It is moderately long but appropriate for the tool's complexity and the behavioral caveats.

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 login, async review, public visibility, auto-matching, parameter-writing guidance, user confirmation, context mounting, and image prerequisite. It does not describe the API response or created-need identifier, and does not explicitly warn about duplicate creation, but given no output schema and the descriptive richness elsewhere, the coverage is strong.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value: title must be 3–120 characters and clearly state the need; detail specificity improves matching and search; contextType+contextId must be passed as a pair; images should be mirrored via upload_image_from_url. It doesn't explain the type enum, but the schema already does thoroughly.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource: '以当前用户身份发布一条需求' (publish a need as the current user), and frames it as the starting point of the need-exchange core loop. It explicitly distinguishes the follow-up action by naming get_need_recommendations as a separate tool for viewing matches.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: login required, publish immediately visible, no need to wait for review, and async risk control. It also points to get_need_recommendations as a follow-up alternative and tells agents to pre-upload images via upload_image_from_url. It does not explicitly say 'use update_need instead of creating a duplicate', but the create-vs-modify boundary is reasonably implied.

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