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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new disclosure: login is required, and the response deliberately excludes contact details and internal governance records. That scope-limiting statement is useful for an agent predicting output.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence: access precondition, returned payload, parameter semantics, then side-effect exclusions. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the excluded data, and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has only type/length constraints, so the description must carry the load. It does: allianceId 可给联盟 id 或联盟组织 id clarifies the two accepted identifier forms, which the schema cannot express.

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 (查看联盟公开页) and enumerates the concrete contents returned: 下属组织、盟主、加盟条件、我的联盟身份、管理组织的加盟状态. This lets an agent separate it from get_alliance_organization / get_alliance_workbench, though no sibling is named 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?

Gives context (需要登录) and negative boundaries (不申请加盟、不更改授权), which implies the apply_* / update_alliance_grants siblings are the alternatives, but it never states when to choose this tool over those. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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