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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds the auth requirements (login + matchmaking capability) and the fact that results carry a pairCount. It also names cloud users, consistent with openWorldHint=true. Return structure beyond pairCount remains unspecified.

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?

Two dense sentences with the login/permission prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. The bracket notation ('【组合链】') is compact but slightly terse, which costs a little readability without wasting space.

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, no-output-schema search tool, this covers the permission gate, the search key, a return hint (pairCount), and a follow-up chain to list_organization_match_pairs. It leaves the overall result shape mostly implied, so it is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 only 50% (organizationId is documented, q is not). The description compensates by clarifying that q is a nickname search ('按昵称'), which gives the undocumented parameter concrete meaning beyond the schema.

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 (搜/search) and resource (可见成员及云用户 by nickname), so the agent knows it searches people scoped to an organization rather than globally. It is clearly distinct from the generic 'search_people' sibling, though it does not name that alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'【需要登录】需撮合管理能力' gives a real precondition (login plus matchmaking-management permission) that implies when the tool is callable. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or pointers to alternatives like search_people or list_organization_members.

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