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

Annotations only indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds critical behavioral context: requires login and OWNER/ADMIN role, explains the meaning of invitable and membership statuses (MEMBER, INVITED, DECLINED_RECENTLY, REMOVED), warns about duplicate names, and states a limitation (no phone search). This goes well beyond annotations.

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 structured with clear sections (【需要登录·OWNER/ADMIN】, 【组合链】, 【口径/坑】) and is front-loaded with prerequisites. It is somewhat dense but every part adds value. However, it could be slightly more concise; the bullet points are efficient but the text is quite long for a search tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with role restrictions, status interpretation, fallback behavior, and integration into an invitation workflow), the description covers all necessary details: prerequisites, usage flow, status meanings, edge cases, and limitations. No output schema exists, but the description implies the return includes candidate info and relationship status. Nothing critical 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%, so parameter descriptions are already complete. The description mentions q behavior and the default listing when q is absent, but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., maxLength, default limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for people by nickname/skills/bio within the platform and marking their relationship to the organization. It also specifies the fallback behavior when q is not provided, and distinguishes its role in the workflow from invite_organization_members. This makes it easy to differentiate from siblings like search_people or add_guest_candidates.

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?

The description explicitly provides a workflow chain (this tool → present candidates → invite_organization_members) and states when to use it: for finding candidates to invite. It also notes the condition when q is omitted (lists past activity participants not yet members). It implies the tool is for inviting, not just searching, and directs to the next step.

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