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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that claimed profiles are surfaced first, that phone-number lookups deliberately return empty for privacy, that logged-in callers can additionally surface cloud users, and that outreach is limited to a human-relayed cooperation request with no opening a chat.

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?

Three dense clauses with the core purpose and the privacy caveat front-loaded, then follow-up routing. It is efficient, though the arrow shorthand (get_creator→start_conversation/contact_need) and mixed Chinese/English jargon make it slightly harder to parse than plain prose.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ranking behavior, privacy constraint, auth-related behavior, and next-step tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to q: it is matched against what a person can offer (canOffer semantics) in natural language, and it warns that a phone number as q yields an empty result — a caveat the schema does not state.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: find real people (找真人) matched on canOffer semantics plus keywords, and immediately states the ranking rule (已认领优先). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling searches by naming search_products and search_needs as the correct tools for products and needs respectively.

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 explicit routing: use get_creator to inspect a person and then start_conversation or contact_need to engage, while for products/needs use search_products/search_needs. It also names the exclusion case (phone-number queries return empty by design) and states the only allowed outreach path is send_cooperation_request with no direct chat.

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