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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: organizer login requirement, inclusion of unconfirmed draft rows, the rule that only confirmed=true guests appear publicly, and that non-empty userId means a site user who can be DM'd.

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 front-loaded with the login/organizer requirement and core action, then organizes combo-chain and pitfalls into clear labeled brackets. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers auth, workflow, and data semantics well. It omits return format or pagination details, but with no output schema this is a minor gap.

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% for the single activityRef parameter, so the schema already documents slug/id usage. The description does not add any parameter-level syntax or format details, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('列' / list) and resource ('嘉宾阵容' / guest lineup) for one activity, and clarifies it includes draft rows. It names related siblings (create_guest_invite_link, add_activity_guest), so an agent can distinguish this from generic activity lists.

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 explicitly requires login as an organizer and explains the combo chain for downstream use (get guestId then create_guest_invite_link; for missing people use add_activity_guest). It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like get_activity_attendance, but the contextual guidance is clear.

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