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

Annotations mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds crucial context: it broadcasts to the activity group, cannot be undone, and details the meaning of each output state (sent, no_group, failed, etc.). This goes beyond the annotations to explain the irreversible consequences and exact reporting semantics.

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 structured into clear sections with headers (【需要登录·主办方】【何时用】【组合链】【口径】), making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value: prerequisites, use case, chain, and status semantics. No filler.

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?

Comprehensive for a complex tool. It covers authentication requirement, when to use, the prerequisite chain, the irreversible broadcast action, and a detailed breakdown of all possible return statuses—ensuring the agent knows exactly how to interpret results and what to tell the user.

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 50% with one parameter documented (activityRef). The description does not directly explain roundId, but the chain mentions getting round.id from get_activity_match_time, which implicitly clarifies roundId. For activityRef, the schema describes it as slug or id; the description does not add more but the chain provides context. Given the partial coverage, this is a good effort.

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 clearly states the tool publishes a match round after it's READY, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like start_activity_match_round by emphasizing the broadcast and non-recoverable nature.

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?

Provides explicit 'when to use' (after grouping is READY) and what not to do (don't use if not ready, don't misreport statuses). It names a sibling and the chain leading to this tool, giving clear context.

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