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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond that by adding visibility filtering, the organization_not_found error instead of an empty list, the extra submissionCount field when canManage=true, and the fact that invited userId lists are never returned. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 organized into clear labeled sections: when to use, the chaining recipe, and pitfalls. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded. Nothing feels redundant or padded.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers visibility rules, error behavior, pagination context via cursor, the intended chaining path, and extra output fields. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and know what to do with the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual value for organizationId by explaining error behavior and mentions items[].slug for chaining, but it does not meaningfully enrich the semantics of q, limit, or cursor beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific use case—'看一个组织有哪几场活动我能报'—making the verb, resource, and scope explicit. It also distinguishes itself from hosting-management tools by noting those cases belong to list_my_activities and bulk_review_signup_submissions, so an agent can tell it apart from nearby siblings.

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?

The '何时用' section explicitly states when to use the tool, confirms it works anonymously, and explains member vs non-member visibility rules. It also gives alternatives: OWNER/ADMIN/EVENT_MANAGER should use list_my_activities and bulk_review_signup_submissions instead, so the agent has clear routing guidance.

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