SocialDataX 微博 Weibo MCP

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) and does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already convey, such as whether the call consumes credits or any authentication notes. It is a minimal, accurate statement that does not enrich the annotation-provided context.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant phrases, and the bilingual format (Chinese with English gloss) is efficient, ensuring clarity without verbosity.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose. It lacks workflow context (e.g., when to check the balance) and does not describe the return format, but the output schema covers that. The absence of usage guidance is a minor gap; overall it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (vacuously) and the description correctly avoids any parameter explanations. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where no additional semantic clarification is needed.

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 verb '查询' (query) and the resource 'SocialDataX 积分余额' (points balance) for the current API key account, with an English gloss. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the weibo-focused sibling tools, which all deal with posts, comments, or user data.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions (e.g., checking balance before making requests). However, since all siblings are weibo data tools and this is a unique account-balance query, the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important behavioral context: it only returns items and does not support pagination. These details are not covered by the annotations and are valuable for the agent.

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 purpose and mentions the two key limitations. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the return shape, and the pagination limitation. It is fully sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and with schema description coverage at 100%, there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 '获取微博热搜列表' (Get Weibo hot search list), using a specific verb and resource. This tool is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on individual posts, comments, or user info.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Its unique scope implies usage, but the lack of explicit guidance leaves it at the 'implied' level.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: the dependency on both post_id and comment_id from the same first-level comment, the requirement to pass page_token unchanged and not reuse it across different posts/comments, and the fallback conditional flow. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then covers usage conditions and pagination. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though it could be broken into clearer sentences. Still, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 (two required IDs, pagination, fallback scenarios) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers essential decisions and pagination rules. It does not describe return format (handled by output schema) but sufficiently guides an agent on how to obtain and validate inputs.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description itself does not add much beyond the schema regarding parameter format or constraints, though it does reinforce the usage conditions (e.g., when to directly use provided IDs vs. fetching them). This meets the baseline given full schema coverage.

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 retrieves Weibo comment replies for a specific first-level comment, using post_id and comment_id. It explicitly names the resource (comment replies) and distinguishes from sibling tools like weibo_get_post_comments_by_post_id by specifying it is for replies to a first-level comment.

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 explicit decision logic: if the user has complete IDs, use them directly; if partial info is available, call the corresponding first-level comment tool to retrieve IDs; if no post location info, ask the user. This clearly guides when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds important scope ('一级评论' meaning first-level comments) and pagination support, which are not in the annotations. It does not repeat or contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key feature (pagination). No wasted words.

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 rich schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate. It could mention sibling tool differentiation explicitly, but the overall definition is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 schema already provides detailed explanations for sort_type and page_token. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches first-level comments for a Weibo post using post_id, and supports page_token pagination. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like weibo_get_post_comment_replies_by_comment_id and weibo_get_post_comments_by_post_url.

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 clearly indicates this tool uses post_id, and the parameter description for post_id explains it can be reused from other results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent via sibling names.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description adds valuable context: it returns only first-level comments ('一级评论') and supports page_token pagination. It also notes flexibility in input forms, which is not obvious from the annotation alone.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, input flexibility, and pagination. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only comment-fetching tool with a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is complete. It conveys the essential behavioral scoping (first-level comments), input variants, and pagination support, leaving no major gaps for the agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description only references page_token pagination generically and does not add meaning beyond the already detailed parameter descriptions for post_url, sort_type, and page_token.

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 action ('获取' / get), the resource ('帖子一级评论' / post first-level comments), and the accepted input types (post link, short link, or share text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate by post ID or retrieve replies.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when you have a Weibo post URL, short link, or share text. The input schema adds an exclusion ('不要传用户主页链接或 post_id' / do not pass user profile link or post_id), but the main description does not explicitly name alternatives like the by_post_id tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description aligns with a read operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as expected output or edge cases, but the annotations lower the burden for a simple getter.

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, minimally worded sentence that clearly conveys the core operation. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify when to prefer this tool over the closely related post_url variant, leaving the sibling-routing gap unresolved.

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?

The schema fully documents the single post_id parameter with a clear description of how to obtain it. The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear action and resource: getting Weibo post details based on post_id. It is distinguishable from the sibling weibo_get_post_detail_by_post_url by the identifier type, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 the many siblings, especially the URL-based detail tool. The parameter description hints that post_id can be reused from other results, but this is about parameter sourcing, not tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a minor behavioral detail about accepting short links and share text, but it does not disclose additional traits such as link normalization, pagination, or exactly which post details are returned; the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact sentence with no filler. Core action and input types are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and accepted inputs.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema and informative annotations, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose the post_id-based alternative instead.

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 post_url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including what not to pass. The description essentially restates the accepted input formats without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('帖子详情' / post details), and clearly scopes the input to post URLs, short links, or share text. This distinguishes it from related siblings like weibo_get_post_detail_by_post_id or comment/liker list 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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and schema rather than explicitly stated. The schema warns not to pass user profile links or post_id, but the description itself does not route the agent to alternatives such as weibo_get_post_detail_by_post_id when an ID is available.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and world-touching aspects. The description adds only that pagination is supported ('支持 page_token 翻页'), which is also already captured in the schema's page_token description. No additional behavioral context like rate limits or auth is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and pagination capability without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity, full schema coverage, and a present output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the key action and pagination support; return values and parameter details are covered by the output schema and parameter descriptions.

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 both post_id and page_token have detailed descriptions that already explain their semantics and usage rules. The description's mention of these parameters adds no new meaning, so it relies on the schema, which is the baseline condition.

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 specific action (获取/retrieve) and resource (微博点赞用户列表/liker user list) tied to a post_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like weibo_get_post_liker_list_by_post_url by requiring a post ID rather than a URL.

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 implies this tool should be used when you have a post_id, and the schema clarifies that post_id can be reused from various endpoints. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., by URL) or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that pagination is supported via page_token, but this is fully covered in the input schema's page_token description. No additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, rate limits, or incompleteness) is provided beyond what annotations and schema already offer.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds input types and pagination support. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters. The description provides enough context about input types and pagination for a get-list tool. It could slightly improve by referencing next_page_token, but that is already documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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%: both post_url and page_token have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema carries the load, a baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('微博点赞用户列表' / Weibo liker list), and clearly states it accepts post links, short links, or share text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like weibo_get_post_liker_list_by_post_id, which operate on post IDs. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains that the tool accepts a post URL, short link, or share text, and mentions page_token for pagination. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you have a URL rather than an ID', but the sibling naming convention and the description's emphasis on link-based input imply the appropriate context. No explicit exclusions are needed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '获取' is consistent with a read operation. The description adds pagination capability ('支持 page_token 翻页'), but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or token-invalid handling beyond the schema's parameter documentation. With the annotation safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource, and identifier first, then adds pagination. There is no filler or repetition of schema content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 a 100%-documented schema, output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the core information needed to call the tool is complete. The only gap is the lack of an explicit routing hint to the post_url variant, which the sibling list and tool name already partially cover.

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%; the schema already explains post_id source and gives detailed rules for page_token (opaque, pass back unchanged, same-post-only). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond noting that page_token pagination is supported. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('获取微博转发列表') and the key identifier ('post_id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate by post_url or on comments/likers. The mention of page_token pagination also identifies its scope. This is a clear verb+resource+identifier definition.

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 implies the tool is for when a post_id is available ('根据 post_id'), and the schema explains post_id can be reused from other list results. However, it never names alternatives such as weibo_get_post_repost_list_by_post_url or states when not to use this tool. Usage context is present only implicitly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that pagination is supported, which is useful context but largely duplicates the schema's page_token documentation. No contradiction exists, and no additional behavioral expectations like rate limits or side effects are disclosed.

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 core purpose and pagination capability with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Together with a fully documented schema, the output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool and paginate correctly. The only notable gap is explicit routing guidance versus the by_post_id sibling, which is already accounted for under usage_guidelines.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the post_url semantics and mentions pagination support, but it does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which already thoroughly documents the post_url constraints and opaque page_token behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the Weibo repost list based on a post link, short link, or share text, and mentions pagination. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool weibo_get_post_repost_list_by_post_id, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 input conditions are reasonably clear: the caller should provide a post URL, short link, or share text, and the schema adds an exclusion for user homepage links and post_id. However, the description never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this URL-based variant over the ID-based sibling or other repost-related tools.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, which align with the read-only nature of '获取'. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication, rate limits, or response characteristics, but given the annotations, the bar is lower and the description is acceptable.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is sufficient. It provides the core purpose, and the parameter schema plus annotations cover the remaining operational details.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the parameter description adds valuable clarification by explicitly instructing to pass only the user profile link and not post links, nicknames, or user_id. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '用户资料' (user info), and specifies the input as '微博用户主页链接' (Weibo profile URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like weibo_get_user_info_by_user_id by the input type.

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 implies usage when a profile URL is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as by_user_id. The parameter description in the schema adds exclusions (not post links, nicknames, or user_id), but the main description itself lacks this guidance.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It simply says 'get' which aligns with the annotation, but doesn't disclose any additional traits such as potential null returns, required auth, or differences from the profile_url variant. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description fails to add extra transparency.

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 short sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling profile_url tool, but this is a minor gap given the self-explanatory name and other structured context.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter fully (user_id with reuse guidance), so the tool description doesn't need to add more. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description itself doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema 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 '根据 user_id 获取微博用户资料' clearly states the tool's function: getting a Weibo user profile by user_id. It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool weibo_get_user_info_by_profile_url by explicitly mentioning user_id.

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 implies usage when user_id is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the profile_url variant or mention any exclusions. The schema description provides a hint about reusing user_id, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds that page_token pagination is supported, but detailed behavioral rules, such as opaque token handling and not reusing tokens across users, are in the schema description rather than the tool description. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence stating the purpose and the key pagination capability, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list tool.

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 fully documented parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It could be more complete by explicitly addressing when to use this tool rather than the user_id-based sibling, but the combination of description, schema, and annotations is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters richly documented: profile_url explains acceptable input and exclusions, and page_token fully specifies exact reuse rules and restrictions. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (get user posts list) and the input (Weibo profile URL), and mentions page_token pagination. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling weibo_get_user_posts_by_user_id in the description text, though the tool name and profile_url field guidance ('do not pass user_id') reinforce differentiation.

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 profile_url parameter says to pass a user homepage link and not to pass post links, nicknames, or user_id, which implies the tool's intended input. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over weibo_get_user_posts_by_user_id or other siblings; usage context is only implied by naming and input constraints.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safe-read nature. The description adds that pagination uses page_token, but detailed token behavior lives in the schema rather than the description, and no other runtime traits like ordering or first-page behavior are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource, the key parameter, and pagination support efficiently.

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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit pointer to the profile_url sibling, but the user_id-based naming and description make correct invocation clear.

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%, including a detailed contract for page_token as an opaque token. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it simply says the tool uses user_id and supports page_token pagination.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: getting a Weibo user's post list by user_id. It also mentions page_token pagination, and the 'by_user_id' naming distinguishes it from the sibling 'by_profile_url' tool.

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 implies use when a user_id is available, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with weibo_get_user_posts_by_profile_url or state when not to use it. The selection criterion is clear but largely left to inference from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description complements by stating it does not create new tasks or trigger reprocessing, reinforcing the read-only nature. It adds a concrete behavioral trait: the 240-second maximum wait per call, which is not in the annotations. No contradictions detected.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (query an existing job) and includes essential behavior (240s wait, no side effects). Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant elaboration.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers when to use it, what it does, and its behavioral limits. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how long to keep polling or when to stop (e.g., 'until completion'), but the presence of an output schema and the wait-time hint make this sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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 the job_id parameter fully documented including its source and exclusion of post_id. The description repeats the job_id origin ('用户提供的有效 job_id，或...submit 工具返回的 job_id') but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the burden.

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 identifies the tool as a query operation for an existing speech-to-text job ('继续查询' = continue querying), tied to a job_id from the submit tool. It distinguishes itself from the submit siblings by explicitly stating it does not create new tasks or trigger reprocessing. However, it does not explicitly state whether it returns status, progress, or final result, leaving some ambiguity for the agent about the exact output nature.

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 implies usage after a submit call by referencing the submit tool's returned job_id and forbidding post_id. It also provides context on the wait behavior (up to 240 seconds) and side-effect-free nature, guiding the agent to use it for polling without re-submission. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of the submit tools', but the contrast is implicit and sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only and dynamic-world behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that pagination is supported, and the detailed page_token handling rules further clarify expected usage. No contradiction exists.

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 compact: three sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and pagination is mentioned last without any verbose filler.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, annotations, and detailed parameter schemas, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, when to use alternatives, and that pagination is available, leaving no critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The main description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying pagination is supported; the keyword and page_token nuances are already captured in the schema.

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 opens with '按搜索词搜索微博帖子' (search Weibo posts by search term), a specific verb and resource. It then explicitly contrasts itself with post-specific and user-specific tools, so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling 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?

It states plainly to use this tool when the user wants to find posts by keyword or phrase, and gives explicit exclusion conditions: use the corresponding post tools when a post link or post_id is available, and user tools when a profile link or user_id is available. It also mentions pagination support with page_token.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds concrete behavior: waits up to 240 seconds and returns a job_id if incomplete. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., immediate transcript return) or any side effects like cost or rate limits, which are relevant given the mutable nature.

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, front-loaded sentence packs the core action, wait duration, and fallback behavior with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 description covers the essential flow (submit, wait, get job) and references a follow-up query action, which is helpful given the output schema exists to document returns. However, it omits any mention of when to choose this post_id variant over the post_url sibling, which is a significant gap for an agent selecting between them. It also doesn't clarify whether a video must exist on the post.

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 post_id parameter is well-described (long ID, reuse sources). The description merely repeats 'post_id' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('submit'), resource ('video speech-to-text task'), and identifier ('post_id'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling by_post_url variant through the explicit mention of post_id, and the name reinforces it. No ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling weibo_submit_video_speech_text_by_post_url, nor does it mention prerequisites or follow-up steps beyond a vague '下一步查询动作'. It fails to explicitly state that this variant is for post_id while the other is for URL, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, leaving substantial room for behavioral disclosure. The description adds valuable detail: the submission waits up to 240 seconds, and on timeout returns a job_id and a pointer to a next-step query action. This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps the agent understand the blocking, asynchronous nature of the call.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, then explains the waiting behavior and expected result. No wasted words or redundant clauses.

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 description covers the key invocation context: submission, a 240-second wait, and the fallback return of job_id with a next-step query action. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., that the post must contain a video), but the output schema likely documents return details, and the sibling query tool is available for polling. This is sufficient for a submit-style tool with an output schema.

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 description merely restates what the schema already documents (accepts post link, short link, or share text). It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (submit a video speech-to-text task), the resource (Weibo post), and the input form (link, short link, or share text). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by_post_id tool through the URL-based input. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the agent has a post URL or share text, but it never explicitly contrasts this with the alternative weibo_submit_video_speech_text_by_post_id. The parameter schema adds an exclusion ('don't pass post_id'), but the description itself provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious input type.

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