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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by disclosing that results are permission-filtered to what the viewer may see, and by imposing an explicit behavioral constraint (do not auto-post or contact on the user's behalf based on moments). It does not describe ordering or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the primary scoping rule ('本组织优先') front-loaded, followed by the permission and no-side-effect constraints. No filler or repetition.

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, four-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, permission filtering, and action prohibitions. It still leaves pagination behavior and result ordering unstated, which an agent needs to page through a feed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains includeNetwork thoroughly, including the default-on implication, but says nothing about limit, offset, or organizationId semantics beyond what the parameter names imply. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 does convey the resource (生态/全国动态) and its scoping behavior, but it never states the operation explicitly as a listing action and never differentiates this tool from close siblings such as list_organization_moments, list_moments_feed, or search_moments. An agent must infer from the name and title alone that this is a read/list operation over a scoped moments feed.

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?

There is genuine guidance on the includeNetwork switch (false = organization-only, true = also nationwide public moments), which tells the agent how to steer scope. However, there is no statement about when to prefer this tool over list_moments_feed, list_organization_moments, or personalized_feed, so tool selection remains implied rather than directed.

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