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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the feed is almost entirely system-generated rather than user content, and the `following` stream requires login and is usually empty. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, but that is minor against the strong annotation coverage.

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-loaded with purpose, then bracketed sections for usage, the moments-vs-official distinction, and the feed enum. Structure is excellent and each section earns its place, though list_moments_feed is named twice and the feed note slightly overlaps the earlier 口径 block.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what the stream contains and how to scope it, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Pagination (cursor/nextCursor) is left to the schema but the schema already fields it, so the overall picture is complete.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, including the enum values for `feed` and `attachType`. The description only reinforces the attachType+attachId pairing and the default feed — useful but largely duplicative, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a boost.

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 names a specific verb and resource (官方内容流 / official content feed) and enumerates its contents — daily featured products, startup competition opportunities, park and policy news. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling moments tools (list_moments_feed / search_moments / publish_moment), so an agent can route without ambiguity.

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】 block gives explicit triggering conditions ('user wants to see what was recently pushed', 'new competition opportunities'), and the 【重要口径】 block supplies a when-not rule plus named alternatives. It also clarifies the attachType+attachId use case (querying content attached to a product/activity/park).

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