upc_shiguang_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it scrapes fixed HTML endpoints, treats activity text as untrusted data (a prompt-injection warning), and refuses URL/account/header/cookie inputs. It still says nothing about page size, total page limits, empty-result behavior, or provenance of the data.

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?

Several short, front-loaded lines with no filler. The purpose leads, followed by operational constraints. Nothing is redundant, though the security constraints consume space that filter semantics arguably needed more.

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 list tool with no output schema, the safety and input constraints are adequately covered. However, five parameters at zero schema coverage — two of them opaque numeric-coded enums — leaves the calling contract materially incomplete; an agent can call it, but cannot use it well.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for five parameters and explains none of them. 'Bound user's' loosely accounts for session_ref being fixed to 'self', but page limits, keyword matching semantics, and especially the base_type (001-005) and online_type (001-004) code enums are completely unexplained — an agent cannot know what these filter codes mean.

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 and resource: 'Read one page of the bound user's Shiguang activity list.' The scope (bound user, paginated) separates it reasonably from siblings like upc_shiguang_activity_detail and upc_shiguang_my_participations, but it never names those alternatives, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told whether this is the browse-everything tool and upc_shiguang_my_participations the filtered one, nor whether to reach for upc_shiguang_activity_detail after finding an item. Only the implicit 'one page' hints at pagination usage.

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