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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect not fully captured by annotations: '读任务会幂等补齐周期任务的期次，故不是纯只读' — reading tasks idempotently fills recurring task periods, so this is not purely read-only. It also states the tool will not read or mark arrangements, and explains pagination and limits. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, adding meaningful detail beyond the annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, pagination behavior, side effects, exclusions, and next-step routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the spatial separation of concerns makes the complexity navigable without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the key return behaviors: goal list limits and totals, nextOffset pagination, task reachingLimit and follow-up via list_collaboration_tasks, invite caps, side effects, and exclusions. It also notes login requirements. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly; the only minor gap is the undocumented includeArchived parameter.

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 description must compensate. It does explain limit and goalOffset meaningfully: the goal list returns at most limit entries with a total, and goalOffset uses nextOffset for pagination and only affects the goal list. However, includeArchived is not mentioned at all, leaving one of the three parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('查看') and clear resources: collaboration goals, tasks pending on me or dispatched by me, and invites awaiting response. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying arrangements should use get_my_dispatch and goal details should use get_collaboration_goal, which prevents confusion with the many sibling get_* tools.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: when tasks have reachingLimit=true, call list_collaboration_tasks by goalId; for goal details use get_collaboration_goal; for progress reporting use set_collaboration_task_status; for invites use respond_collaboration_invite; for arrangements use get_my_dispatch. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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