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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: login requirement, read-only nature ('只读不回源查单'), the distinction between annualPass (current time) and canEnterOffline (event start time), and the fact that offline-issued tickets (source=STAFF) may not have orders. It explicitly states the tool does not place orders or make payments, reinforcing the read-only guarantee.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear section labels (【需要登录】【何时用】【组合链】【口径/坑】) and front-loads the essential login and usage scenarios. While lengthy, each section provides distinct value and the content is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity. No redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key return fields (myTicket, priceCents, ticketNote, contactUrl, annualPass, canEnterOffline) and how to interpret them. It covers edge cases (offline-issued tickets, PENDING lag), the per-activity failure mechanism, and the combination with list_my_activity_history. The description gives an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and constraints. The description adds meaning for activityRefs by explaining it can handle multiple events at once ('一次带多场') and that failures are per-event (进入failed). This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description, though it doesn't elaborate on limit beyond schema.

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?

The description clearly states it is for querying the user's annual pass, orders, and multi-event ticket status, with specific example questions. It distinguishes itself by focusing on the user's own ticketing/pass status across events, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_my_activities or get_activity.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (user asks about pass duration, ticket purchases, order payment status), a recommended combination chain with list_my_activity_history, and specific guidance on how to interpret results (e.g., what to tell the user when myTicket=false and priceCents>0, and to check canEnterOffline via get_activity). It also warns about PENDING state staleness, giving clear usage context.

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