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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds useful data caveats: low-sample entries may be omitted without implying absence, and logged-in counts can include cloud users while anonymous counts include only real people. It does not describe the response shape, but it goes meaningfully beyond structured 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs caveats and routing guidance into two compact sentences. The arrow notation ('chip→list_talent→get_creator') is terse but efficient; no sentence is wasted.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back. It does that by naming the returned fields (chip/label/count) and their ordering ('all在首') plus data caveats. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about the response structure or auth context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing because there are no inputs to clarify.

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?

States a specific read operation ('读') and resource ('人才目录真实chip/label/count'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by prescribing a combo chain (chip→list_talent→get_creator) and an alternative (search_people). An agent can tell what this tool returns and how it differs from list_talent and search_people.

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 says when to use this tool (to get chips for the talent directory) and when to use an alternative ('冷门改search_people'), plus the downstream chain. It also warns against assembling a REST call manually ('别拼REST'), leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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