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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the login requirement, that contacts are withheld by default, that contacts are returned only when the request is ACCEPTED and currently visible, and that login phone/profile contact data is never returned. These privacy, consent and status-conditional behaviors are exactly the extra context an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the login requirement, then purpose, then the consent rule, then return conditions – a logical order with no filler. The contact-withholding point is stated twice (default no contacts; never returns login phone/profile), a minor redundancy.

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 and a privacy-sensitive payload, the description covers login, consent gating, status conditions and redaction, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits how non-owner/non-existent requests behave, a small remaining gap.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: it explains that includeContacts defaults off and that both includeContacts=true and contactReadConsent=true are required only on explicit user request. Only requestId is left unexplained, though it is self-evident.

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 specific verb+resource ("只读本人指定交流请求" – read-only, retrieve one's own specified connection request), which cleanly separates it from the plural `list_connection_requests` and the mutating `create_connection_request`/`respond_connection_request`. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative 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?

It gives real conditional guidance for the consent flags (默认无联系方式; only pass includeContacts/contactReadConsent when the user explicitly asks), but says nothing about when to choose this tool over list_connection_requests or other contact-retrieval siblings. Usage is implied rather than framed as a selection rule.

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