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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses pagination semantics (pass cursor back unchanged; only null terminates) and two operational limits: cloud group owners are relayed manually, and QR codes are only viewable by the user in the App. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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, front-loaded, semicolon-delimited clauses with no filler; the purpose comes first and each clause adds a fact. The telegraphic style packs a lot in, though the run-on parameter list slightly reduces scannability.

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 9-parameter read-only search with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, coverage is incomplete: query/city/limit/organizationId semantics and any indication of what the result set contains are absent. What is present is accurate and useful, but the definition is not sufficient on its own for all parameters.

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 compensate, and it does so for only 5 (`id`, `recommended`, `ownerId`, `featured`, `cursor`). The primary query parameter `q`, plus `city`, `limit`, and `organizationId`, are left entirely undefined, so an agent must guess at their meaning and interaction.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: find groups that are currently recruiting. It also reveals that supplying `id` switches the tool into a detail-lookup mode, which is genuinely clarifying. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g. search_all, search_alliances) to prefer, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

It gives per-mode guidance ('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 implies when each parameter applies. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search_all or search_alliances, and no exclusions are offered.

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