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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details beyond annotations: login includes isMine, displaying=false means not listed, OPEN does not guarantee display, there is no quota/compensation guarantee, and nonexistent IDs yield found=false.

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 one dense, semicolon-separated sentence that is compact and front-loads the returned content. The chain and resource are appended efficiently, though the run-on style slightly reduces readability.

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 single-resource fetch with one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers return fields, display-status semantics, login effect, and nonexistent handling. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already described as a need id (cuid). The description adds only that nonexistent IDs return found=false, which is response behavior rather than new schema meaning, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 specifies that it returns a need's public body and author supply, and notes that login adds isMine, which is more specific than the tool name alone. It does not open with an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the resource and its chain position distinguish it from siblings such as search_needs or contact_need.

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 【组合链】 explicitly places get_need after search_needs and before contact_need/send_message, giving a clear workflow context. It also names the opcmenu resource URI. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative for detail lookup is stated, but the chain covers the main usage path.

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