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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious behavioral facts: 他人BP仅hasBp，不含地址/联系方式, cloud users require login, and cloud=true routes to send_cooperation_request human relay and cannot open chat. These are meaningful constraints beyond 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?

Dense but structured with 【组合链】and semicolon-delimited clauses; front-loads the return contents. It is somewhat terse and telegraphic, but every clause carries routing or behavioral value with minimal waste.

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?

For a read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, privacy limits on BP/contact info, login gating for cloud users, and the cloud=true cooperation-request path. Sufficient for correct invocation; minor gaps remain on exact BP content semantics.

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?

Only one parameter (id), and schema coverage is 100% with a clear description. The description mentions cloud relaxation of visibility but does not tie it explicitly to a request parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the param.

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 names a specific verb+resource (查主理人详情) and enumerates exactly what is returned: 公开主页、作品、在架需求、角色. It also clarifies scope differences vs siblings (本人全部需求用 list_my_needs).

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?

Explicit routing is provided via the 【组合链】section: openNeeds→get_need/contact_need, 作品→get_product, 真人→start_conversation, and 本人全部需求→list_my_needs. It tells the agent when to use this vs alternatives.

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