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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a login requirement, the default window, pagination termination (nextCursor=null), and the non-obvious data nuance that participation is an array where a single event may be both CHECKED_IN and GUEST. It also warns not to treat a participation fact as an organizer admission.

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?

Front-loads the login requirement and core purpose, then uses bracketed labels to separate the combination chain. Very dense but every clause carries distinct information; the only cost is that the compressed Chinese phrasing assumes domain familiarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return semantics, and it does explain the participation array and the CHECKED_IN/GUEST overlap. It stops short of enumerating remaining returned fields, but for a filtered-list tool with fully documented params this is close to complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it states limit≤50, that window defaults to all, and clarifies that nextCursor=null signals the end of pagination — a termination rule the cursor parameter description does not specify.

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 — querying the caller's own participation facts (报名/签到/线上参会/嘉宾) — and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_my_signups by contrasting '参与事实' with '录取结果'. An agent can tell it apart from list_my_activities and list_my_signups without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance per window value (upcoming for recent, past for paginated review), names the follow-up alternative (get_signup_activity for time/location), and points to list_my_signups.reviewStatus for a different question. When/alternative/exclusion are all present.

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