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

Beyond the idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses three non-obvious behaviors: the query is costly so it must not be hammered, phone-number people searches deliberately return empty for privacy, and cloud users are only reachable through manual secretary relay. It also forbids fabricating results when all scopes come back empty, which prevents a realistic failure mode.

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 purpose and then densely packed with constraints separated by semicolons; essentially no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of being terse (arrow notation, 小秘书), but each clause carries distinct information.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema search tool spanning three entity types, the description covers cost, privacy-driven empty results, follow-up calls per result type, and the all-empty fallback. It does not describe result shape or ordering, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 100%, and the schema already documents q, limit (max 30, service-side clamping, per-type defaults) and the scope enum with its 'default all' meaning. The description only restates that scope drives parallel search, adding no syntax or semantics the schema lacks.

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 names a concrete verb and three concrete resources (人/需求/产品) and frames the tool as a parallel, scope-driven unified search. It is clearly distinguishable from a single-resource lookup, though it never states how it relates to the sibling search_people / search_needs / search_products tools.

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 gives a real usage constraint (don't loop/repeat calls because embedding, query expansion and reranking cost money) and routes the agent afterwards: people results go to get_creator, needs to get_need, products to get_product, and an empty sweep may go to create_need. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer the per-type search siblings instead.

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