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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: immediate external visibility (post-review), private visibility must be explicitly passed, terms agreement enforcement, and a rate limit of about one per hour. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (【需要登录】【组合链】【口径/坑】) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the pitfalls section is moderately long and could be slightly tighter.

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?

Without an output schema, the description would ideally mention return values, but it covers auth, defaults, side effects, next-step chain, and rate limits. For a create tool with rich schema and annotations, it is largely 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 the schema already documents all parameters including enums and nested objects. The description reinforces visibility=PRIVATE and terms optionality, but adds little meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: '以用户本人名义建组织' (create an organization in the user's own name), lists example types (商会/社群/俱乐部), and clarifies the user becomes OWNER. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_company, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: login required, defaults (public discoverable, join requires review), a combination chain for next steps (set logo, search candidates, invite members), and a confirmation requirement before creating. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance, but the usage situation is well framed.

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