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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses auth prerequisites (login + matchmaking management capability), the search scope (visible members and cloud users), and that results carry pairCount. The user.id→list_organization_match_pairs chain adds real operational context about how to proceed with results.

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 and front-loaded with bracketed markers for the login/management constraint and the combination chain. Every segment carries information, though the bracket notation is somewhat terse.

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 usefully notes the pairCount return and the user.id field for chaining, and states the auth requirements. For a two-parameter search tool this is largely complete, missing only explicit guidance on alternative search tools.

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 covers only organizationId (50%), but the description compensates by explaining that q matches by nickname ('按昵称搜'), which the schema leaves undocumented. Together, schema plus description meaningfully cover both 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches ('按昵称搜') visible members and cloud users by nickname, and returns pairCount. It distinguishes the scope (visible members + cloud users) but does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like search_people or list_organization_members, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 '需撮合管理能力' note implies the context (matchmaking management) and the chain hint points to the follow-up tool, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement or clear exclusion, leaving it at implied usage.

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