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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the public-only scope and input restrictions, which are useful beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not mention auth or rate limits; the read-only annotation covers the main safety profile.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and accepted input, the second gives an important routing/negative instruction. No wasted words, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 paginated list tool with output schema, readOnly annotations, and detailed parameter descriptions, this is complete. It covers input types, what not to pass, page-token continuation via schema, and the alternative user_id route.

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 100% with detailed parameter documentation for profile_url and page_token, including the opaque-token continuation rule. The tool description reinforces accepted input forms and exclusions, but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema's already comprehensive descriptions.

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?

Description states the specific action (获取公开发布动态列表) and the accepted input forms (主页链接、短链接、分享文案), while explicitly excluding video links and user_id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like by_user_id variants and content/video 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (profile URL/short link/share text) and when not to (no video links; if user_id is already available, use the user_id entry). This is explicit routing guidance with an alternative path.

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