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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses login and OWNER/ADMIN permission requirements, that agent-side code cannot receive the original answer text, that keyword matching is server-side and returns only hit flags, and that pages are capped at 200 with nextCursor pagination. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the permission requirement, then organized into a combo chain and pitfall list. Every sentence carries operational value, and the bracketed sections make it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the needed output shape by enumerating the answer-summary fields. It also covers required permissions, the sequencing with sibling tools, keyword limitations, and pagination, 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?

All 5 parameters already have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the server-side matching nuance and shows pendingOnly=true in the chain, but most parameter details like default limit and cursor behavior are already present in the schema.

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 action and resource: '列入会申请' (list membership applications) and adds the distinguishing output detail of an answer summary. The combo chain explicitly separates this listing tool from list_my_organization_memberships and bulk_review_organization_applications, so an agent can disambiguate it from 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?

It gives an explicit combination chain: use list_my_organization_memberships to find orgs with pendingApplicationCount>0, then call this tool with pendingOnly=true and keyword, then bulk_review_organization_applications with preview. It also states when not to use it for the original answer text, directing the agent to the App/web backend.

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