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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description discloses login requirement, the behavior of still returning results after an event is delisted/cancelled, and explicitly states the response contains no registrant data and no learnedPageKeys. These edge-case behaviors are not inferable from the schema or annotation, adding significant value.

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 organized into clearly labeled sections 【需要登录】【何时用】【组合链】【口径/坑】, front-loading the login requirement and usage context. Every sentence provides actionable information for the agent, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 enumerates the return content (event current values, formSchema, external form address, category, contact QR code, myAccess with possible values), exclusions (no registrant data, no learnedPageKeys), and the read-after-delisting edge case. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly call the tool and interpret its response for a single-parameter read operation.

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 100%, and the schema already describes activityRef as '活动 slug 或活动 id'. The description's pitfall ① repeats this exact information, adding no new semantic detail about the parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (读/reads the complete configuration), names the resource (活动本体现值 + 报名配置 + myAccess permission), and distinguishes itself from siblings by excluding registrant data and learnedPageKeys. The combination chain explicitly routes to update_organizer_signup_config, update_activity, and list_signup_submissions, making differentiation unambiguous.

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?

It tells exactly when to use the tool: as the first step of read-edit-write before configuration changes, or when the user asks about their own activity configuration and registration form content. It also names the alternatives: update_organizer_signup_config for registration config, update_activity for event body changes, and list_signup_submissions for seeing registrants, so the agent knows which tool to select.

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