share_list_banners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that returned content includes title, body and status, which is largely duplicative given an output schema exists; it discloses nothing about freshness, caching, or visibility of announcements.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded immediately after the verb. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool, though it is so terse that it offers no structural signposting beyond the one clause.

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 zero parameters, a 100%-coverage schema, an output schema and rich annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, so the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is routing: an agent cannot tell from the description alone when to use this versus share_close_banner or other listing tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not waste words inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 gives a specific verb (读取) and a specific resource (平台公告) and enumerates the fields returned (标题、正文与状态), which lets an agent tell this read operation apart from the mutating sibling share_close_banner. It is clear, though it never names the resource with the same term as the tool name 'banners', requiring the agent to infer that 公告 == banner.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives; the agent must infer from the name that share_close_banner is the write counterpart. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusion conditions are stated.

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