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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/safe. The description adds substantial context beyond them: default returns real people only, logged-in users may see cloud users, cloud users cannot be chatted with and only route via send_cooperation_request, offset pagination, and no contact info returned. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the combination chain. Dense but every clause carries operational information with no filler.

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 carries the return burden and does so: default population, pagination mechanism, absence of contact info, and downstream entry points (user.id→get_creator→start_conversation/follow_creator; company.slug→get_company). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the chip enum is fully described in-schema (including value meanings and the get_talent_chips pointer). The description adds only the offset/nextCursor pagination note, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("按求职专业目录找人才") and the title explicitly constrains it against a sibling class ("按职业找人，不是找产品"). An agent can distinguish it from list_creators, list_companies and search_products without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: call get_talent_chips first for real chips, illegal chips fall back to all, rare categories should switch to search_people. Names alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving little to inference.

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