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

readOnlyHint already declares the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the returned items are meant to be referenced by type/id only, with titles and links rebuilt server-side after validation. It doesn't disclose pagination, limits, or ordering of the listing.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the scope of what is listed comes first, the reference contract second. Nothing redundant with the name or title.

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 no-param, read-only listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how identifiers should be reused. Only listing mechanics (size, ordering, truncation) are absent.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage leave nothing to document; the description correctly avoids inventing inputs. Baseline 4 applies to a no-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb (列出/list) plus three well-delimited resource categories: activities the user administers, products the user has published, and open needs. That combination distinguishes it from broad siblings like list_my_products or list_activities, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '引用只提交 type/id' signals this is the source of referenceable objects for a cooperation plan, but it never says when to call it versus list_cooperation_plans, list_my_products, or list_my_needs. No prerequisites or ordering guidance are given.

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