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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: an authentication requirement (需登录), the 50-item cap and newest-first ordering, and interpretations of the returned status values (DELIVERY_FAILED means external proxy failure requiring manual resubmission; PENDING is undisposed not rejected; SHORTLISTED means shortlisted). This is exactly the kind of behavioral/return semantics annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the login requirement and scope, then routing, then status semantics; every clause carries information with no filler. It is very dense and run-on (semicolons, arrows) which slightly reduces readability, but nothing is wasted.

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 readOnly annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return context itself (cap, ordering, included fields, status meanings) plus the auth prerequisite and routing alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single param (includeAnswers) is already fully documented in the schema, including the default-false and keys-only behavior. The description restates ('默认仅答案keys，要内容显式includeAnswers') but adds no syntax or detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list my signups with results), plus scope details: up to 50, newest first, and the fields returned (delivery status, organizer reviewStatus, messages). It also names the sibling tools it is not (get_signup_activity / submit_signup, get_signup_gaps), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 routing: to supplement materials use get_signup_activity→submit_signup (which overrides the prior version), and for multi-signup gaps use get_signup_gaps. It also states the login precondition, so when/when-not and the alternative are both covered.

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