anon_get_announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description usefully adds behavior beyond that: pinned-first ordering, publish-time descending sort, filtering to the caller's visible scope, and that total reflects the visible count. It does not cover pagination defaults or rate limits, 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?

Roughly three compact sentences plus the endpoint path, with the core action and constraints front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (membership, ordering, visibility, total semantics, project auto-detection) carries distinct information.

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 read-only listing endpoint with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies membership requirements, sort/filter semantics, and the project-resolution rule. The only material gap is pagination/expired-filter behavior, which lives partly in the schema rather than the description.

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 reported at 0% for the (nested) parameters, and the description adds nothing about page, limit, or includeExpired — it doesn't even mention the expired-announcement toggle or the 50-item cap. The parameter burden is therefore not compensated in the description text.

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 (列出) and resource (公告) plus the backing endpoint GET /api/projects/{id}/announcements. An agent can immediately distinguish this list operation from siblings such as anon_post_announcements, anon_delete_announcements_announcement_id, or anon_get_announcements_announcement_id_confirmations.

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 a real prerequisite ('需项目成员身份') and clarifies that projectId is not needed because the API key determines the project, which prevents a wasted call. However, it never states when to pick this tool over the per-announcement or confirmation endpoints, so 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.