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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: cursor paging semantics ('cursor原样翻页，null才到底') and two hard constraints (cloud group owner only via manual relay; QR code visible only to the user in the App). That is more than the structured fields provide.

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 definition is dense and front-loaded, leading with the tool's purpose before enumerating filter behavior, and every clause carries information. The semicolon-separated run-on style is efficient though slightly harder to parse than discrete 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?

With read-only annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the remaining burden is purpose, filter semantics, and pagination, all of which are present. The gaps are the four undocumented parameters, which leaves an agent guessing at query, city, limit, and organization scoping.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains 5 of them (id, recommended, ownerId, featured, cursor), but leaves q, city, limit, and organizationId undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opening clause '找招募中的群' gives a specific verb (find) and resource (recruiting groups), which is enough to separate it from siblings like search_alliances, search_moments, and search_people. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description explains how to drive each filter ('id看详情', 'recommended=true看本人推荐', 'ownerId列某人名下与管理的群', 'featured筛组织推荐'), which is useful usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose search_groups over generic alternatives such as search_all, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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