查询渠道分布

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee that no registrant details are returned and that results are aggregated counts and percentages, but it does not mention ordering, empty-data behavior, or data freshness.

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 description is a single, dense sentence that leads with the principal output and uses a semicolon to add a relevant exclusion. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter read-only query, the description conveys the essential return information: counts and proportions per channel, and the explicit absence of personal details. There is no output schema, so a bit more structure about the response fields could be added, but the description is still adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description focuses appropriately on output semantics instead.

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 uses a specific verb '返回' and names the exact resource: registration counts and proportions by promotion channel. The added clause '不返回任何报名人员明细' clarifies the level of aggregation and distinguishes it from detail-level queries, though it does not explicitly compare with sibling distribution tools.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as summit_get_forum_distribution, summit_get_forum_industry_distribution, or summit_get_registration_summary. The intended use is only implied by the output description, with no exclusions or selection criteria.

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