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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — expired posts are excluded using the site's own rule — but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what a returned post looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope stated first and the filtering rule second; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

All parameters are optional and the description covers scope plus the expired-post filter, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, but with no output schema and strong schema coverage the gap is minor.

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 80% with descriptive text for city, role, query and hackathon, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 when structured fields carry the load.

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 and resource: searching active team-up posts on the 黑123 /team board, and clarifies they are posts seeking teammates. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings get_hackathon, search_hackathons and search_works, though it never names them explicitly.

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 implies the usage context (finding current teammate-seeking posts) and adds an exclusion rule for expired posts, but offers no when-to-use vs. sibling guidance and no mention of prerequisites or rate limits. Adequate but clearly gapped.

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