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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: login is required, the tool is side-effect free (no messages sent), and crucially that an empty result does not mean the task is done or nobody can help, with a distinct no_people_list return. It also discloses the shape of the return (public identity / supply summary). It omits pagination behavior tied to limit.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the login requirement and the core scope, then the key source, then the chain. Every clause carries information; the bracket/arrow notation keeps it compact, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so (identity/supply summary, empty-list semantics, no_people_list), and it supplies the chaining workflow. Annotations already cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the unexplained limit 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 50%; taskKey is documented in the schema and the description usefully adds where it comes from (get_my_positioning.stageGoals, gated on peopleTool). However, the limit parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('按阶段事项找人' – find people by stage task) and immediately scopes it against messaging tools ('只查目录，不发消息'). It also names the source of the key input (get_my_positioning.stageGoals), so an agent can tell what this does. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with close siblings like search_people.

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?

Gives a clear entry condition ('taskKey取get_my_positioning.stageGoals且peopleTool指向本工具') and an explicit downstream flow (items[].id → get_creator → user-confirmed start_conversation) plus a fallback (create_need). It does not say when to prefer search_people or other people-finding tools, so alternatives are only partially covered.

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