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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and '只查目录，不发消息' is consistent with it rather than new information. The genuinely additive behavior is the empty-list semantics ('空列表非完成或无人可帮') and the '无专属名单返回no_people_list' failure mode plus the login requirement. Those are useful, but the description still omits pagination/limit behavior for a list tool.

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?

Every clause carries information — prerequisites, scope, return semantics, workflow, fallback — with no filler. Structure is telegraphic (semicolons and arrows) rather than prose, which hurts readability slightly and front-loads a bare '登录;' rather than the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does: public identity/supply summary, empty-list meaning, and the no_people_list sentinel. Combined with auth requirement and the downstream workflow, an agent can call this correctly without opening anything else.

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 already carries 'get_my_positioning 返回的任务 key' in the schema, and the description only reinforces its provenance. The limit parameter (1-30) is undocumented in both schema and description, so half the surface adds no meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a partially covered two-parameter tool.

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 concrete verb+resource: '按阶段事项找人' (find relevant people by stage task), scoped to business goals and custom tasks. It distinguishes the operation from messaging tools by declaring '只查目录，不发消息'. It does not name a specific sibling (e.g. search_people, list_organization_activity_people) so the differentiation is by capability rather than by explicit routing.

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 an explicit precondition ('taskKey取get_my_positioning.stageGoals且peopleTool指向本工具'), an explicit when-not ('只查目录，不发消息'), and a full follow-up chain: items[].id → get_creator → user confirmation → start_conversation, with create_need as the documented fallback. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what to do next.

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