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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety bar is met structurally; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: login is required, statistics completeness depends on directory grants, a missing relation must not be inferred as owned vs. franchised, and contacts are redacted to public identity only. That field-level disclosure is exactly what the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tightly packed clauses with no filler, led by the login requirement and the precondition. The density comes at a slight cost of readability for internal jargon ('directory 授权', 'relation 缺省'), but every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the returned data surface, authorization-dependent variability, a known ambiguity in a returned field, and privacy limits on contacts. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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%, so the two parameters (allianceId, organizationId) carry no documentation anywhere. The description implicitly constrains organizationId to a registered subordinate org of that alliance, which is useful, but adds no format, lookup, or prerequisite detail; both names are self-describing, so this lands at baseline rather than a penalty.

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 read verb and resource — a single registered subordinate organization of an alliance — and enumerates the returned facets (capabilities, actual grants, 主理人, revenue-share status), which separates it from get_alliance_workbench and get_alliance. An agent can route here without opening any schema.

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 an explicit ordering precondition ('先读联盟工作台') and a scoping caveat that statistics depend on directory authorization. It does not, however, name a concrete alternative for the case where the agent wants the org list or the full alliance instead.

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