upc_shiguang_activity_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral information beyond that: contact person and phone fields are omitted from the result, which tells the agent the payload is a redacted subset. It does not discuss errors for missing/invalid IDs, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the redaction caveat is placed front and center. It is arguably too short for the information the schema leaves undisclosed, but nothing in the wording 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?

For a read-only single-record lookup with no output schema, the agent still lacks a description of the returned fields beyond the redaction note, and the meaning of the 'kind' switch and of session_ref is unexplained. Sibling context clarifies the list-then-detail flow, but the definition alone leaves meaningful gaps.

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 should compensate, yet it explains none of the three parameters. The 'kind' enum (activity vs social_practice) and default, the numeric-only activity_id pattern, and the fixed session_ref='self' are all left for the agent to discover from the schema alone, and the description does not say whether 'kind' changes what is returned.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Read one Shiguang activity detail"), which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool upc_shiguang_activities and from the registration/participation tools. It could be sharper about the 'kind' distinction (activity vs social_practice), but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name an alternative tool or the conditions that require one. An agent must infer that this is the follow-up call after listing activities.

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