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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds valuable traits beyond them: rate/cost sensitivity ('勿循环刷'), a privacy behavior (phone-number searches return empty), and a relay constraint for cloud users. These are operational facts the agent would otherwise not know. It does not explain the readOnlyHint=false anomaly for a search tool, keeping it at 4.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core parallel-search purpose and cost warning come first, then privacy/relay notes, then the follow-up chain. The arrow/【组合链】 notation is compact and earns its space, though the brevity makes it slightly hard to scan.

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 still explains result routing (which detail tool to call per result type) and the empty-result fallback, plus cost and privacy behaviors. It does not describe return shape/pagination, but against full param coverage and rich annotations it is close to complete for a search 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 100%, so the schema fully documents q, limit, and the scope enum (including defaults and caps). The description only restates '按scope', adding no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 concrete verb+resource and scope: '按scope并行搜人/需求/产品' (search people/needs/products in parallel by scope). This distinguishes it from the single-type siblings (search_people, search_needs, search_products) by making clear it is the unified, one-shot search. An agent can tell it apart without opening the 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 real usage context: don't loop it because embedding/expansion/reranking have cost, phone-number people searches come back empty for privacy, and cloud users only via manual relay. It also supplies a follow-up chain (person→get_creator, need→get_need, product→get_product) and an all-empty fallback (create_need). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the per-type sibling search tools, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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