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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds login requirement ('需要登录'), clarifies that results are precomputed ('只读已算结果'), explains the 'warming' state ('等待理解更新'), defines 'score' as a ranking score, and notes a cloud-user chat restriction. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations, though pagination or result-format behavior is not described.

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 a single dense sentence using brackets and arrows to front-load the login requirement and then pack purpose, state semantics, and a combination chain. Every clause appears to carry information, but the terse phrasing may be cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the domain terms.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, but it does mention 'score' and 'warming' which are arguably result-related. However, it omits cursor/pagination behavior and gives no indication of result structure or how matches are generated. For a list tool with two parameters (one undocumented), this is adequate but incomplete.

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 50%: organizationId has a schema description ('组织 id') and cursor has none. The description only mentions '组织id' in the combination chain, adding no new meaning, and completely omits the cursor parameter. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, so parameter semantics remain weak.

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 resource and scope: '组织中谁与我有合作切入点' (who in the organization has collaboration entry points with me), with read-only precomputed results. The verb is implied by the name and the description clarifies what a 'match' means. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling match-related tools like search_organization_match_people, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides a combination chain suggesting flow: '组织id→本工具→get_creator', and notes that '云用户不能开聊' (cloud users cannot start chat). This implies usage context but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over other match-listing tools.

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