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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: login requirement, non-managers only seeing assigned tasks, the 20-organization limit with a prompt to specify, partial failure handling via failed[], and truncation via truncated[] for orgs with >100 tasks. It also notes no pro version needed. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear headers (【需要登录】,【组合链】,【口径/坑】), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, usage context, and pitfalls without redundancy. Despite length, it is efficient and logically organized.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the merge behavior, sorting, failure semantics (failed[]), truncation (truncated[]), and permission scoping. It also mentions the login requirement and the 20-org caveat. This is comprehensive for a complex fan-out tool, leaving little an agent needs to infer.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default fan-out behavior for organizationIds (scan all registered orgs, with a warning about >20) and how failures/truncation relate to the parameter. It does not add syntax details beyond schema, but the added behavioral context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the tool merges the user's tasks across all their organizations into a single list sorted by deadline, explicitly distinguishing it from the service layer that only fetches per organization. It also differentiates from the sibling get_my_work (cross-organization personal todos) and set_organization_task_status (status updates), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names alternatives and conditions: '跨组织的个人待办另看 get_my_work' tells when to use a different tool, and the combo chain (this tool → set_organization_task_status) suggests the follow-up action. The description also explains the fan-out nature and the default behavior when organizationIds is omitted, giving clear usage context.

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