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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful non-schema context: a login requirement (需要登录), which is required to call at all, and the composeId handoff that makes the read-only output actionable.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the login and 办活动 tags, then scope, then next-step routing. No filler; the only mild cost is dense jargon (composeId) without explanation.

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 one-optional-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers access requirement, default scope, and what the items are for. It does not describe the item fields returned beyond composeId, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 enum values are already documented. The description still adds the omission semantics that the schema lacks — that leaving status out returns ACTIVE plus PARKED — which is genuinely beyond the input schema.

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 and resource ('列我没发完的活动草稿'), scopes it to the caller's own drafts, and names the sibling family (get_activity_draft / update_activity_draft / publish_activity_draft) it feeds, so it is clearly distinguished from the singular get_activity_draft.

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?

Explicitly explains the default listing behaviour (both ACTIVE and PARKED) and that filtering to one status is optional, plus a clear downstream chain via composeId. It does not contrast with near-siblings like list_my_activities or list_activities, so 4 rather than 5.

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