upc_service_my_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: pagination completeness flags, redaction guarantees (no internal ids, session tokens, private attachment URLs, or third-party detail links), third-party record marking, and the rule that null progress means unsupported nodes rather than zero completion. These are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

The scope statement is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent clause carries distinct information. It is slightly dense and heavy on backticked field names, and 'read-only' partially duplicates readOnlyHint, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description deliberately describes the return envelope (total, has_more, complete_for_page, complete_for_scope, progress nullability, redaction) that would otherwise be undocumented. Combined with pagination limits from the schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters (page and page_size with bounds in Chinese), and session_ref is a fixed const='self'. The description adds meaning the schema lacks by explaining that one response covers exactly one page and that has_more / complete_for_page / complete_for_scope describe what was read, which is the key semantic for driving pagination.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one page of the bound user's e站通 applications') plus the read-only scope, and the second paragraph explicitly separates it from the sibling todo queue ('it is not the pending-at-me todo queue'). An agent can distinguish it from upc_service_my_todos without opening either schema.

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 clearly frames the use case (in-progress applications that may be waiting on other people, status=1 view) and explicitly rules out the pending-at-me scenario, which points the agent toward the todo sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating hard prerequisites, so guidance is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternative matrix.

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