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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the interesting load: it discloses the login + AI-authorization prerequisite and, importantly, the privacy redaction (contact info, privateNote, and attachments are stripped from results). Cursor pagination behavior is also noted. The ambiguity of the final clause is the only weakness.

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 dense sentence with the auth precondition front-loaded and no filler; the field-inclusion/redaction detail is packed efficiently. The terse final fragment '不公开或邀请' sacrifices clarity for brevity, which is the only structural flaw.

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 does useful work by listing returned fields and excluded fields, but it leaves gaps an agent needs: what q matches against, what limit does (default 20, max 100), and how to detect a next page. Adequate but incomplete for a three-parameter list 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, but it only explains cursor ('沿用前页' — take the cursor from the previous page). The q search parameter and the limit/pagination sizing are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (查) and a precisely scoped resource (本人私人人脉), plus enumerates the returned fields (id/称呼/职业/介绍/关系) and explicitly excluded fields. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings such as find_network_candidates, list_my_network, or get_network_coordination_contacts, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 【登录+已有AI授权】 tag gives a useful precondition for calling, and '本人私人' implies the personal-private scope. However there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over the sibling candidate/introduction listers, and the trailing '不公开或邀请' is ambiguous — it could mean results exclude public/invite contacts or that the tool does not perform publishing/inviting.

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