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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses pagination limit (200 rows), truncated flag semantics, phone masking, worked flag meaning, and authoritative count (broughtInTotal). This is rich behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Concise and structured with numbered points. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, pagination, field semantics, and masking. Front-loaded with the key distinction from get_broker_desk.

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?

Covers pagination, count reporting, field semantics, masking, login requirement, and usage guidance. No output schema, but key fields are mentioned. Exceptionally complete for a list tool with one parameter.

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 schema describes workedOnly as '只看真做过的', and the description clarifies that 'worked' means actually creating a match, adding semantic context. With 100% schema coverage, this extra explanation justifies a 4.

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 verb (list) and resource (broker attributions), calls it a reconciliation table, and explicitly contrasts with get_broker_desk for summary counts, distinguishing it from siblings. Clear and specific.

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 tells the agent to use get_broker_desk for summary counts and not to call both, providing a clear when-not condition. Also explains pagination and count reporting, guiding when to use this tool for full data.

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