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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses a 30-result cap, that empty q yields an empty list at the service layer, that there is no pagination, and the returned relation categories. This is meaningful behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields, though it omits ordering and permission-failure 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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the login/permission requirement and packing constraints and the next action into one sentence. It borders on a run-on and includes a slightly opaque '同测试隔离' phrase, but nearly every clause carries information.

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, no-output-schema search tool with two params, the description covers auth, permission, result cap, edge case, and the follow-up action. The main gap is leaving the required allianceId semantically unstated, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains q is a name search and that empty q returns nothing. The required allianceId is never described explicitly, only implied via the '須联盟 manage' prerequisite, so it only partially compensates.

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 (search) and resource (organizations that are candidates to be invited into an alliance), plus what is returned (joined/pending/other alliance relations). An agent can tell this is a candidate-lookup for alliance invitations, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like search_organization_invite_candidates or discover_organizations.

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 the precondition (【需要登录】須联盟 manage) and a next-step workflow (查详情后确认邀请), which orients an agent on when this applies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, keeping it at clear-context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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