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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: login required, self-exclusion, activityId default behavior, cloud users lacking an App channel, service-determined channels, ended-activity limitation, returned fields smsRetryAt/hasInviteLink, and the security guarantee that contact info, links, and tokens are not returned.

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-loads the key constraints 【需登录·只读】 and then packs purpose, defaults, edge cases, and return/security notes into a single dense but logically ordered paragraph. Every clause carries operational meaning, though the run-on semicolon structure could be broken up for faster scanning.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the critical gaps: login requirement, self-exclusion, activityId defaulting, channel-determination behavior, ended-activity limits, partial return fields, and sensitive-data exclusions. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 67%: organizationId and proposalId are documented in the schema, while activityId is not. The description compensates by explaining that a missing activityId uses the already-linked activity, which is meaningful default semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: view a proposal's currently visible attendees, channels, and acceptance progress, excluding yourself. It distinguishes read-only inspection from invitation by noting that exclusive links require the invite tool with MANUAL, but it does not explicitly name sibling list tools such as list_organization_activity_people.

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 clear conditions for use: activityId defaults to the linked activity, empty channels mean you cannot invite, ended activities only allow checking progress, and exclusive links require a separate invite tool. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other attendee-listing siblings, but the context is well established.

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