contact_batch_get_user_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens with multiple inputs, whether results are batch or first-match, error handling, rate limits, or edge cases. This is a bare statement of functionality with no behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also doesn't clarify the optionality of parameters (schema shows none required) or any constraints. For a simple two-parameter tool, this description is too incomplete to guide an agent effectively.

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?

The input schema already fully describes each parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'emails or mobiles' without adding any extra meaning, such as whether at least one is required or behavior when both are provided. It neither detracts nor adds value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a user ID via email or mobile number. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('用户 ID'), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools, which are all focused on bitable, wiki, docs, im, or drive operations rather than user contact lookup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The sibling tools do not include a similar contact lookup, but the description does not indicate under what circumstances this tool should be chosen, providing no usage context at all.

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