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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a login requirement, an explicit negative scope (no joining applications, no authorization changes), and a data-boundary statement that contact details and internal governance records are not returned. It does not discuss result size, pagination, or what happens for a non-member or invalid id, which keeps it below a top score.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: login prerequisite first, then the purpose, then the id semantics, then the read-only/exclusion caveats. Every clause carries information, with only the semicolon-chained structure slightly hurting scanability compared to discrete sentences.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the returned-fields list, the id flexibility, and the privacy exclusions — enough for an agent to call it correctly and set expectations. Only the absence of any note on result shape limits or empty/denied cases keeps it from being fully 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 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: 'allianceId 可给联盟 id 或联盟组织 id' discloses that the identifier is polymorphic, which an agent could not learn from the bare string schema. That is exactly the kind of meaning the description should add.

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+resource: viewing an alliance's public page (联盟公开页) and enumerates what is visible: subordinate organizations, leader, joining conditions, my membership identity, and whether organizations I manage have joined/applied. This distinguishes it from action siblings like apply_organization_to_alliance or update_alliance, though it does not explicitly contrast with near-read siblings such as get_alliance_organization or get_organization_alliance_status.

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?

Implies usage context by framing the tool as a public-page read ('登录;看联盟公开页') and by stating it does not apply for membership or change authorization, so an agent knows this is the inspection step before acting. However, it never names which alternative to use for related needs (e.g., get_alliance_workbench for management, get_alliance_organization for a single subordinate org), so the routing is left to inference.

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