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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds behavior the annotation does not cover: a capability gate (pickActivities), server-side exclusion of the caller's own organization and ended activities, and cursor-based pagination via nextCursor. Those are exactly the kind of filtering and access facts an agent cannot infer. It stops short of describing the response payload beyond mentioning 'picked 和报名卡片'.

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 and free of filler, but it is ordered as prerequisites first ('登录;...能力才可搜') and purpose second, so the agent reads access conditions before learning what the tool returns. Splitting the capability gate and the workflow into clearer clauses would improve front-loading without adding length.

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 candidate-list tool with no output schema, it covers access, filtering, workflow order, and pagination, which is a reasonable minimum. It is still incomplete: the shape of the returned candidate cards and the meaning of q and limit are left unspecified despite the 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so all four parameters rely on the description. It explains pagination (nextCursor) and therefore effectively covers cursor, but q (keyword), limit (page size), and the required organizationId are never mentioned or constrained. With a low-coverage schema, the description should carry more of the parameter meaning than it does.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching public, published activities that are eligible for pick/feature (可搜可精选的公域已发布活动), and it states the scope limits: the service layer excludes the calling organization and activities that have ended. The name and title carry the 'list/search candidates' framing; the description itself does not repeat that exact wording, so an agent has to combine the two. That keeps it below 5, even though the meaning is still unmistakable.

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 concrete preconditions (login plus the pickActivities capability) and a workflow order: first review the picked and registration cards, then confirm adding to the organization space. That tells an agent when this tool is appropriate and what follows it. It never names the sibling that performs the confirmation (set_organization_activity_pick), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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