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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds meaningful behavior: login is required, results are bounded by the target's own display settings and blocking, even for the owner or org admins, and private activities are never surfaced. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Compact two-clause sentence that front-loads the login requirement and then the visibility constraints. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; no padding.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: auth requirement, privacy scoping rules, and empty-result semantics. Only parameter-level detail is left implicit.

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 0% and the single userId parameter has no schema description. The description implies the tool targets a specific person's public activities, which maps to userId, but it adds no format, source, or resolution guidance beyond that inference.

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 (查/list) and resource (公开参与活动) and constrains the scope to public display settings, public audience and bidirectional blocking. This clearly separates it from self-scoped tools like list_my_activities or admin tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 context for use: retrieving another person's publicly visible activity participation. It also warns that an empty result does not imply non-participation, which guides interpretation. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions are named.

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