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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the login requirement, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what the counts represent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear login prerequisite prefix and no wasted words. Efficient and complete for what it declares.

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 output schema, the description only loosely sketches the return values (three relationship categories plus counts) without describing structure or pagination. Annotation coverage handles safety, but more return-shape detail would help an agent use the output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is baseline 4. The description correctly conveys the no-argument nature by focusing entirely on the return scope.

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 (返回/return) and resource (当前用户的关注/粉丝/好友列表与计数), and the title '列我的关系网' is consistent. It distinguishes itself well from siblings like list_my_blocks or list_connection_requests by naming exactly which relationship categories it returns.

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 '【需要登录】' prerequisite signals when it's callable, and 'my' scoping implies no arguments. But it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_relationship (single) or list_connection_requests (pending requests), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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