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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description adds login requirement, free cost, reversibility, and detailed failure semantics (403 not_your_need, 409 need_closed). This gives an agent practical behavioral knowledge not present in structured metadata.

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 compact and well-structured: the primary action and pairing are front-loaded, followed by a concise failure-semantics section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or generic 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?

For a single-parameter, reversible operation with existing annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: auth, pairing, cost, reusability, failure modes, and the alternative tool to use. Nothing needed for a 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% with needId described as '需求 id'. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does indirectly clarify that needId must be a manually unpublished need owned by the user, but this is part of the tool-level context, not parameter syntax.

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 states a specific verb (把...放回信息流) and resource (手动下架过的需求), and explicitly names its counterpart unpublish_need. It also differentiates from create_need for closed needs, so an agent can distinguish it from closely related siblings without guessing.

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 clearly says when to use: for needs that were manually unpublished, to restore them to the feed. It also gives an exclusion: if the need is cancelled or completed, use create_need instead. This explicit when/when-not and alternative routing is ideal.

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