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

Goes well beyond the annotations: per-item receipts, no rollback on partial failure (atomicity), omitted fields left unchanged (PATCH semantics), archived preserves record/attribution while releasing pool quota, and phone changes bind the user irreversibly with first-come-first-served attribution. This is rich behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the login requirement, then dense clause-laden sentences covering semantics and workflow. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-packed style is heavy and could be slightly structured better.

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 complex nested-patch tool with no output schema, the description covers atomicity, per-field apply semantics, archived behavior and the destructive phone-change caveat, plus the selection workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 semantics for key fields absent from the schema: archived's retention/quota behavior and phone's irreversible rebinding/attribution effect. This lifts it above the schema-only baseline.

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+resource ('batch patch own leads') with clear scope ('本人线索'), and explicitly routes to the sibling list_broker_leads for selection. An agent can distinguish this from create_broker_lead, delete_broker_lead and list_broker_leads without opening schemas.

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?

Tells the agent to use list_broker_leads first to pick targets, giving a concrete workflow condition. It does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use cases or contrast against delete_broker_lead, but the selection prerequisite is clear.

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