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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial non-derivable behavior: login + organizer permission required, 20k row cap, returns only a signed link (never CSV body to the model), 10-minute validity, single successful open, permission re-verification on open, re-obtainable after expiry, and the truncation notice.

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 critical permission constraint in a bracketed lead, then the composition chain, then link lifetime rules. Every clause carries real information, though the dense multi-clause sentences with semicolons cost some readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return; it does so precisely (one-time signed link only, no CSV body). Permission, lifetime, re-verification, and the 20k truncation caveat cover everything an agent needs to call and relay results 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?

Only one parameter (slug) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about slug semantics beyond the schema's '活动 slug', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource: it issues a one-time signed export link for a signup list CSV, capped at 20k rows, and explicitly says it does NOT return the CSV body. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_signup_submissions (overview) and bulk_review_signup_submissions (per-person handling).

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?

Provides an explicit composition chain (list_signup_submissions to check count → user confirms full-table export → this tool → hand over url) and names the alternative for per-person disposition. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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