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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: the tool only lists resources within the user's management authority, and references must be submitted as type/id only because the server validates and reconstructs titles and links. This clarifies how the output should be consumed.

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?

Exactly two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the resource scope, and the second states the reference submission contract. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only list, the description covers what is returned and how the results should be used (type/id references). No output schema exists, but the type/id note makes the return contract clear enough for an agent. Slight gap: it does not describe pagination or ordering, though that is minor for a reference-picking tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema or description to clarify. The description indirectly conveys that the returned items carry type and id fields, which is sufficient for an agent invoking the 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 uses a specific verb ('列出') and names three concrete resource categories: activities the user manages, own published products, and open needs. The title '合作方案可引用的资源' further clarifies this is a resource-list tool for cooperation proposals, distinguishing it from generic list_my_* siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use comparison with sibling tools like list_my_activities, get_my_products, or list_my_needs is provided. However, the title and the note '引用只提交 type/id' imply it is intended for selecting referenceable resources when drafting a cooperation proposal, making usage implied rather than explicit.

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