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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: keyword+vector hybrid retrieval with RRF fusion, claimed creators ranked first, result fields (canOffer/similarity/claimed), and the server-side privacy behavior that phone-number queries always return empty. This gives the agent a realistic model of how the tool behaves.

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 section headers (何时用, 机制, 组合链, 常见 pitfall) and every sentence adds information an agent needs. It is information-dense but not bloated, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned signals, ranking behavior, and post-search follow-up tools. It also covers the main failure mode (phone-number search) and directs to sibling search tools, making the decision context complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema: q should express the kind of capability/resource the user wants the other person to provide, and phone numbers are explicitly not supported. The limit parameter is sufficiently documented in the schema, so no further elaboration is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for people by what they can offer, using examples like '找能提供小程序代开发的主理人' and explicitly scoping to supply-side fields (canOffer, name/intro/identity tags). It also distinguishes itself from search_products and search_needs, making it easy for an agent to pick the right search tool.

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 opens with '何时用' and gives concrete use cases, then names the sibling alternatives for products and needs. It also provides a follow-up chain (get_creator, start_conversation, contact_need) and explicitly warns against phone-number queries, so an agent knows what to do and what not to do.

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