dingtalk_contact_user_search_mobile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic lookup action without mentioning permissions, error behavior, or side effects. There is no explicit statement that this is a read-only operation, though it is implied by '查找' (search).

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 communicates the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is appropriate for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks any information about the return value format, behavior when the user is not found, or required permissions. Since there is no output schema, these details would be helpful. However, the minimal description is adequate for a basic search, though gaps remain.

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 schema describes the 'mobile' parameter as '手机号' (mobile number), and the description repeats this by saying '根据手机号'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 '根据手机号查找钉钉用户' (find DingTalk user by mobile number), using a specific verb (查找/find) and resource (钉钉用户/DingTalk user) with a clear method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dingtalk_contact_user_search' by specifying the mobile-number-based 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'dingtalk_contact_user_search'. The usage is implied by the name and description (i.e., when you have a mobile number), but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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