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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permission/auth requirements, or what happens when the member is not found. The only behavioral hint ('精确' exact match, same source as by-name) is already stated in the schema descriptions, so it adds nothing beyond structured fields.

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 that front-loads the action and resource before the parameter rule. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 simple no-output-schema read tool this is largely adequate, but with zero annotations the description should at least confirm it is a non-mutating lookup and sketch what 'profile details' returns, which it leaves entirely vague.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics by declaring the two lookup keys are mutually exclusive alternatives ('二选一'). The schema shows both parameters optional with no oneOf constraint, so this clarification prevents passing both or neither.

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?

Names a clear verb and resource: retrieve a single member's profile details (查单个成员主页详情), which is distinguishable from the listing sibling soloteam_directory. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is left to inference, but the scope ('single member') is specific enough for correct selection.

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 selection guidance between the two parameters ('按 name 或 id 二选一'), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus soloteam_directory or soloteam_me, and no mention of error behavior when neither/both are supplied.

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