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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, yet the description adds meaningful extra context: login required, read permission required, returns myAccess with OWNER/ADMIN/PLATFORM_ADMIN roles, remains readable after unpublish/cancel, and omits signup data and learnedPageKeys. This is behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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-loads the gating condition (【需要登录】), then return scope, then the composition chain via a bracketed marker, so each sentence earns its place. Dense but zero waste and clearly structured.

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 carries the burden and does so: it enumerates what is returned (本体/报名配置/myAccess), what is excluded, role conditions, and lifecycle behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents '活动 slug 或活动 id'. The description's 'activityRef收slug/id' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the parameter.

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: reads the activity's own config (本体/报名配置) plus myAccess, and explicitly scopes what is excluded (no signup user data, no learnedPageKeys). This distinguishes it from neighbors like get_activity, get_activity_draft and get_organizer_ticketing without needing schema inspection.

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 composition chain (read current value → update_organizer_signup_config → re-read to confirm) and routes the agent to the correct alternatives: update_activity for title/time/location/deadline/quota, list_signup_submissions for the roster. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both stated.

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