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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly frames the operation as returning information and a QR code rather than actually performing a contact action. However, it does not disclose whether the scenario input is transmitted anywhere, whether the response is static, or any privacy or side-effect implications.

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 compact and front-loads the tool's category before stating the return value. It contains no filler, though it is minimal enough that slightly more context could be added without becoming bloated.

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 low-complexity tool with two fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the main return contract. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves usage context implicit and omits any mention of side effects, making it only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly maps to parameters (e.g., '微信二维码' corresponds to include_wechat_qr) and adds no new parameter-level semantics, matching the 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?

The description uses an explicit verb ('返回') and names concrete deliverables: free/custom version plans and the developer WeChat QR code. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 opening label 'AI客服·定制咨询' provides an implied usage context for customer consultation and customization requests. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as guide_usage or frontdesk_reception.

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