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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint; the description adds substantial behavioral context not present there, notably that the call marks displayed suggestions as seen and thereby affects backend auto-replacement, so it is not purely read-only. The gray-release availability restriction is also extra context an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the availability gate, then the side-effect warning, then sibling routing — a sensible ordering. It is dense, packing four distinct concerns into a short block separated by semicolons, but no sentence is wasted.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it describes what the response contains and how to react to fillStatus states. Minor gaps remain, such as pagination or size limits on the returned lists, but nothing blocking.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so parameter semantics default to the baseline. The description does not need to explain inputs and instead spends its words on return content and state handling, which 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 ('查看安排') and enumerates the concrete contents returned: arrangement paths, suggested people/activities, arrangements awaiting feedback, and inbound requests. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like accept_dispatch_arrangement and set_dispatch_outcome, which it names 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use accept_dispatch_arrangement to accept and set_dispatch_outcome to give feedback, and states the gating condition (only accounts with server-side gray release enabled). It also gives operational rules for the FILLING state (re-query later) and FAILED state (report truthfully, do not auto-re-report).

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