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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: login requirement, q matching phones/WeChat IDs with number normalization, phoneTail4-only display with a privacy warning, note filtering, and archived=true behavior. 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 organized into labeled sections with front-loaded purpose and cap, followed by numbered caveats. It is dense but every sentence contributes necessary operational or workflow information.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow, auth, parameter semantics, privacy, and archive behavior. Minor gaps remain around response shape and source filtering specifics, but an agent has enough to call the tool 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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well for q with detailed search/normalization/privacy semantics and for archived with explicit behavior, and mentions source and max-200 limit. It does not explain source enum values or the default limit, but the schema already makes those self-explanatory.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 查自己的线索池, with filter dimensions (source/keyword/archive) and a 200-row cap. It also positions the tool explicitly as the verification entry after import and the anchor picker for scan_broker_matches, distinguishing it from related 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?

The description gives explicit context: use after import_broker_leads to verify data and to pick anchors for scan_broker_matches, and provides a concrete combination chain. It does not explicitly list exclusions versus other sibling list tools, but the intended workflow is clear.

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