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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavioral context: login is required, soldSeats counts seats not tickets, capacity must be fetched elsewhere, phone numbers are masked, notes may contain private info, and tickets=null on permission failure rather than an entire error. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps agents avoid misuse.

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 labeled sections (【需要登录】【何时用】【组合链】【口径/坑】) and every sentence carries necessary information. Despite its length, there is zero fluff; each pitfall is concrete and actionable. The front-loaded 'when to use' and the scoped 'caveats' make it efficient to parse.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: when to use, how to chain with sibling tools, and critical edge cases (masked phone numbers, null tickets, soldSeats semantics). It does not provide a full return structure, but the key behaviors are disclosed. Given moderate complexity and annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful parameter insight: activityRef can be obtained from get_activity or get_signup_activity, enriching what the schema says ('活动 slug 或 id'). It also touches on includeTickets indirectly through the '名单' mention, though the schema already documents it. This small but relevant addition justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb ('读') and resource ('门票与线上参会配置'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_organizer_activity by noting that the latter's full configuration excludes these fields. The title and '何时用' anchor the tool's purpose for organizers querying ticketing and online attendance settings.

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 '何时用' section explicitly names the triggering questions (paid? online participation? tickets sold?) and the alternative tool (get_organizer_activity) that lacks these fields. It also provides a usage chain ('读现值 → update_organizer_ticketing → 再读核对') and warns about unsupported queries like remaining seats, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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