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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses an important data-exposure boundary: only public identity and progress are shown, while private phone numbers, WeChat IDs, and contact credentials are not returned. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but the privacy constraint is valuable behavioral context.

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 short and front-loads the two viewing modes before adding the privacy boundary. It could be slightly clearer by starting with an explicit listing verb, but there is no wasted wording.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main access perspective and privacy scope. It is incomplete on the required organizationId semantics and does not mention pagination or filtering, which are relevant for a listing tool.

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 has one required organizationId parameter with 0% description coverage. The description implies an organization context through '本组织联系工作人员', but it never explains that organizationId is required or how it affects the personal versus organization view, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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 identifies the resource as contact-assistance records and explains the two viewing perspectives: individuals seeing their own requests and organization staff seeing pending items. It is clear enough to distinguish this listing behavior from many siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative list_connection_requests.

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?

It gives clear usage context by stating who should call it: an individual viewing their own requests or organization contact staff viewing pending items. It does not specify when not to use it or point to an alternative tool, so it falls short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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