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

The description clarifies that an empty result is normal and does not imply no offline supply, and that results include the author's canOffer. Annotations already mark this as idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the extra context is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the core function, then lists the follow-up chain and the alternative. The teletype-style concatenation is a bit terse but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the search semantics, result contents and next steps. It does not explain pagination or the output shape, but those are minor gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (q and limit) are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions '关键词+向量' search without adding format or syntax details beyond that.

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 (搜) and resource (公开在架需求) and explains that the search is hybrid keyword+vector. It distinguishes itself from list_my_needs by explicitly directing personal needs to that sibling.

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 an explicit combination chain (get_need→contact_need→send_message) and names the alternative tool (list_my_needs) for the user's own needs, so usage conditions are fully spelled out.

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