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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld; the description adds value beyond them by stating 【需要登录】(login required), that nextCursor should be passed back verbatim for pagination, and that organizationId is the field used to enter a space. It does not cover rate limits or result caps, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the login requirement and the core purpose, with each following clause adding a distinct actionable fact (return fields, pagination, siblings). 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, organizationId) and their downstream use. Combined with the pagination and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and act on this tool.

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 must carry the load: it clarifies that q matches by name/introduction and that cursor is the opaque pagination token passed through unchanged. Both parameters gain meaning, though q's max length of 40 and exact matching behavior remain undocumented.

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 + resource + scope: search visible alliances by name/introduction, and names exactly what is returned (alliance id and organizationId). It is clearly distinguishable from get_alliance (details) and search_alliance_organization_candidates (organization candidates) because those are named as separate routes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_alliance for public subordinate organizations and joining conditions, and to create an alliance call get_my_alliance_application_state then submit_alliance_application. When-to-use-next-step guidance is fully specified rather than implied.

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