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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (points, badges, skills), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, authorization needs, or any potential limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('住客主页详情') and then lists the sections displayed. No wasted words, though the 'or name' clause introduces confusion.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so return value details are covered. The description mentions the content sections but fails to resolve the parameter ambiguity (id vs name) and lacks any guidance on prerequisites or usage context. Given the simple tool, this is a minor but notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It suggests 'id or name' but the schema only has 'aid', creating ambiguity about whether a name string is valid. The description does not define 'aid' precisely or explain accepted formats, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs.

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 clearly states the tool views a resident's homepage with points/badges/skills, making it distinct from sibling list tools. However, it mentions 'by name' as an input, but the schema only defines 'aid', creating slight ambiguity about what is actually accepted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like agents_list or hall_read. No explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that 'resident_profile' is for detail views.

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