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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the proposal notifies the alliance and awaits acceptance, and that it overwrites any current pending proposal from either party — which substantiates destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. Missing only rate-limit or error behavior.

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 login/permission gate, then sequencing, then side effects, then the parameter caveat — a sensible order. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, role prerequisites, prior-read requirement, side effects, and the ambiguous parameter's semantics. An agent could call this correctly from the description alone; only return/error expectations are unaddressed.

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 the description carries the burden and does so for allianceShareBps: it defines the unit (basis points, 10000=100%), the pool it applies to (获客/管理分成池), and explicitly excludes whole-order revenue. organizationId is left unexplained but is self-evident.

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 verb+resource pair (propose / organization alliance share) is stated explicitly, and the title reinforces it. It is distinguishable from set_alliance_organization_share and respond_* siblings, though the description never names them directly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

States concrete preconditions: login required, must be the organization's actual manager, and must be in a franchise/join relationship, plus an instruction to read the share first. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., set vs. propose, or the respond_* counterparts), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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