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

Beyond the annotations (which cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: sort order by deadline, non-manager scope limiting results to own tasks, and failure semantics where a failing organization lands in 'failed' and 'truncated' signals an organization exceeded 100 unfetched tasks. This is valuable context nothing else provides.

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?

It is a single dense, front-loaded paragraph with no filler — login requirement first, then scope, defaults, and failure semantics. Each clause carries information, though the run-on style is slightly harder to scan than a clearly segmented version would be.

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 2-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: auth requirement, default scope, cross-organization merge behavior, and the meaning of the 'failed'/'truncated' response fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so status and organizationIds (including the '不传=我全部在册组织' default and 20-item cap) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the default-organization behavior but adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (with the title '我的组织任务（跨组织合并）') clearly states a retrieval of the user's organization tasks, merged across organizations and sorted by deadline. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_organization_task_status for updates and get_my_work for cross-organization personal to-dos.

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 gives an explicit precondition (【需要登录】 login required), the default scope (all enrolled organizations, must name them if over 20), and names two alternatives with their distinct purposes. The agent knows exactly when to call this tool versus set_organization_task_status or get_my_work.

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