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

Annotations already signal readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: login requirement, authorization boundary with error name (not_your_need), soft downweighting of seen needs, and the scoring/weighting mechanism. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well structured with clear sections (【需要登录】【组合链】【越权】), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence conveys distinct, useful information without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description names the returned fields and explains the authorization, pagination, and follow-up actions. For a read-only recommendation tool, this provides all essential context an agent needs to select and 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 description coverage is 100% and already documents needId, seen, limit, and cursor with their intended usage. The description reinforces cursor and seen behavior but does not add material meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the action: fetch personalized recommendations for one of the user's own published needs. It specifies the matching logic, result fields (matchScore / matchReason / authorNeeds), and scope ('自己发布的', '别人的会被拒'), which distinguishes it from general feeds and search tools.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it ('发完需求主动出击的工具，不用干等撮合推送'), restricts it to one's own needs, and gives the follow-up chain: contact_need or start_conversation. It also explains pagination behavior with nextCursor and seen, leaving little ambiguity about how to invoke and continue using the tool.

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