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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context that recommendations do not imply confirmed availability or free eligibility and must be confirmed after contacting. That is a substantive caveat an agent could not infer. It does not describe result ordering or how the venue list is shaped, keeping it 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?

Two dense semicolon-delimited clauses with no filler; the primary filtering use case is front-loaded before the id/providerId/cursor routing and the recommendation caveat. Slightly cryptic shorthand like '本人优惠' requires the reader to map it to freeForMe, but nothing is wasted.

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 14-parameter, zero-coverage schema with no output schema, the description covers the high-value parameters and the trust caveat but omits four parameters (notably limit and organizationId) and says nothing about pagination semantics beyond 'cursor'. Adequate, but an agent would still guess on page size 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 14 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does explain roughly ten of them by name-in-context (city, district, capacity, startsAt, freeForMe, id, providerId, cursor, activityId, composeId). However q, limit, endsAt, and organizationId are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving real gaps for a 14-parameter tool.

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 opens with a concrete verb-plus-resource ('找场地' / find venues) and enumerates the qualifying dimensions (city, district, capacity, start time, free-for-me), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_parks or get_park, which leaves some ambiguity about venue-park scope.

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 explicit mode-routing guidance: 'id看详情' (use id for detail), 'providerId看某人场地' (use providerId for one provider's venues), 'cursor翻页' (cursor to paginate), and 'activityId/composeId推荐' (for recommendations). That is a clear map of when to use which parameter, though it never states when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for park listings.

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