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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: it only accepts profile links that directly resolve to a non-empty user_id, rejects work links, and defines the two-step behavior for live/fw-user pages. It does not detail error behavior, but this is not required given the schema and read-only annotation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then packs routing and negative constraints into compact, semicolon-joined sentences. It is efficient overall, though it repeats some schema content, creating minor redundancy rather than waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description fully covers the selection criteria, the special live/fw-user routing, the forbidden input type, and the fallback to the user_id-based tool. With input schema covering pagination and output schema covering return values, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the page_token semantics are fully documented in the input schema. The tool-level description largely restates the profile_url precondition already present in the schema, so it adds no significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what structured metadata already provides.

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's action ('获取公开作品列表') and resource ('快手用户主页链接、短链接或分享文案'), distinguishing it from the user_id-based sibling tool by explicitly routing to the user_id entrance when a user_id is already available. It also adds a clear negative constraint ('不要传作品链接'), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: direct profile URLs should be passed to this tool, while live/fw-user pages require first calling the user-profile entry and then using the returned user_id. It also states the alternative ('可直接使用 user_id 入口'), giving an agent a concrete routing rule instead of leaving it to inference.

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