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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: it warns that each need triggers a real LLM call and writes an exposure line (cost), imposes a hard cap of 5 needs with no cursor, and mentions that already-contacted people are sunk. These details are not in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and are crucial for an agent to manage expectations and side effects.

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?

The description is structured with clear sections (需要登录, 会花钱, 入参, 组合链) and front-loads the purpose and cost warning. Each sentence adds value: the cost warning, the cap, the alternative tool, and the combination chain. It is dense but organized, with no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers essential output aspects (matchedNeeds, truncated), the cost and cap constraints, and the recommended usage chain. It fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly and understand its side effects and limitations.

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 100% and both parameters already have detailed descriptions (needIds auto-fallback, max 5, limitPerNeed default). The tool description largely repeats these facts without adding new parameter semantics beyond the schema. The only extra is the output field 'truncated', which is about output, not parameter meaning. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: running the 'lens' across all my in-stock needs, aggregating by person, deduplicating, and outputting who to contact today. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_need_recommendations (deep-dive into a single need). The verb 'run lens' and resource 'my needs' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: it names get_need_recommendations as the alternative when deep-diving into one need, and provides a combination chain (this tool → get_creator → start_conversation/contact_need). It also notes the agent-only nature and the cost implication, which helps decide when to invoke it.

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