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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: requires login, contacts hidden by default, an explicit consent flag is mandatory, and shared contacts are returned only when the request is ACCEPTED and still visible. It also states a negative guarantee — login phone and profile contact details are never returned — which is exactly the privacy context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 — the login requirement and read-only scope come first, followed by the contact-consent rule and the return gating. Every clause carries information; the only cost is that the privacy conditions are packed tightly into two sentences.

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 steps in to describe what the response can contain (only mutually shared contacts, only under ACCEPTED + visible). It does not cover failure modes such as a non-owned or non-existent requestId, a minor gap for a single-record fetch.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains that includeContacts defaults to no contacts and that contactReadConsent is a prerequisite for contact visibility. requestId is left unexplained, though it is self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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 and resource: read-only retrieval of one's own specified connection request ('只读本人指定交流请求'). The singular '指定' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_connection_requests, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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?

Gives a clear conditional rule for the sensitive path: contacts are off by default and includeContacts/contactReadConsent should only be set when the user explicitly asks to view them. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as list_connection_requests or respond_connection_request.

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