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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a lot: the exact content of the returned profile, the fact that it is universal across tools, skills, and MCP servers, and the total index scope (288 entries). "获取" makes the read-only nature clear. It does not state what happens with an invalid or missing key, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the payoff (what the profile contains), then coverage scope, then index counts. Dense but every clause carries information. The counts (228/35/25) are mildly decorative but do convey scope in a single glance.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description usefully substitutes for the missing output schema by enumerating the fields returned. For a simple lookup tool this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior and precedence between id and slug are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the key parameter is already documented with id and slug examples in the schema. The description restates "按 id 或 slug" and adds that all three entry types share the same lookup, but contributes no new syntax or resolution rules (e.g. which takes precedence). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: fetch the complete profile of a single entry by id or slug, and enumerates the profile sections (positioning, tier structure, fit/non-fit scenarios, licensing notes, author notes, pricing/detail URLs). It implicitly contrasts with the search siblings by emphasizing "单条条目" (single entry) and noting it spans all three entry types. It stops short of naming search_tools / search_skills_mcp as the alternative for discovery, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the sentence "索引共 288 条…均可用本工具取详情" tells the agent this works for any entry in the index, which suggests it is the second step after a search. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no naming of sibling alternatives like search_tools or get_promotions.

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