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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds major non-obvious behavior: default omission of full answers, 50-item newest-first cap, strict separation of submission.status from reviewStatus, and clarifications that DELIVERY_FAILED is not rejection and PENDING is not failure. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 dense but well organized into 【需要登录】【何时用】【组合链】【口径/坑】 sections. Each section has a distinct purpose, the most important usage signal is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place by covering a real selection or invocation pitfall.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return shape: max 50, newest first, submission.status enum, reviewStatus enum, reviewNote, and answer-key-only behavior. It also covers login requirements, common misinterpretations, and follow-up tool routing, so nothing needed 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?

Although the schema already describes includeAnswers with 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful rationale: defaulting to false avoids flooding context with personal data, and includeAnswers=true is only needed when full answer text must be inspected. This helps the agent decide when to override the default, not just what the parameter means.

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 opens with explicit user intents (「我报过哪些 / 那个赛事结果出来没 / 主办方回我了吗」) and states the resource: all the user's signed-up sessions with delivery status, reviewStatus, and reviewNote. It also differentiates the tool from nearby siblings by positioning it as the「我的报名」screen and naming get_signup_gaps for a different cross-signup need.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers: call when the user asks about past signups or organizer results. It also provides chaining rules — seeing SHORTLISTED or a reviewNote requesting materials leads to get_signup_activity then submit_signup, while a full gap sweep routes to get_signup_gaps — so the agent knows exactly when this tool is and is not the right choice.

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