get_activity_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '获取' implies a non-mutating read and the field list hints at the payload contents, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the activity must be published/visible, or error behavior when the id is unknown.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the field enumeration parenthetically appended. No filler, though the parenthetical field list makes it slightly dense.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does helpfully enumerate the returned fields, which is more than most. But it omits access requirements, failure modes, and sibling routing, leaving real gaps for a tool an agent must pick correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (activity_id) at 0% schema coverage, but it is self-evident and the description's '指定活动' confirms it identifies the target activity. No format or syntax guidance is added, so this lands at the single-obvious-param baseline.

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 (获取) and resource (指定活动的完整详情卡片) and even enumerates the fields returned. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling query_activities, which an agent could easily confuse it with for detail retrieval.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With query_activities sitting as a sibling, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing this card-fetch tool over a general activity query.

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