SocialDataX 微博 Weibo MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a read-only balance query. It adds useful context by tying the balance to the current API Key and pointing to the billing dashboard for recharges. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides an actionable billing link. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only balance query with an output schema, annotations, and a billing link, the description is fully sufficient. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters Belarusand schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned balance represents.

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 a specific action (query) and resource (current API Key account's SocialDataX points balance), including Chinese and English terms. It is unambiguous and obviously distinct from the YouTube-focused 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?

The description identifies the exact context: querying the balance for the current API Key accounttons. It also provides a relevant follow-up URL for recharging. There are no competing sibling tools for balance checking, so no explicit alternatives 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 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?

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declare the safety and open-world profile. The description adds the id-sourcing workflow and pagination support, but pagination is fully repeated in the schema, so genuinely new behavioral context (auth needs, rate limits, what the reply objects contain) is thin. A 3 is appropriate given annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the ID-sourcing and pagination clauses. It is a single dense semicolon-delimited sentence, slightly run-on, but every clause carries routing information and nothing is 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, ID prerequisites, alternative-tool routing, and pagination. It is essentially complete for this tool; only explicit sibling contrast and edge-case error behavior are absent.

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 param carries very detailed opaque-token rules in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetch Weibo comment replies keyed by post_id + first-level comment_id. It implies the distinction from sibling 'get first-level comments' tools by naming the workflow to obtain the IDs, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with weibo_get_post_comments_by_post_id. Clear purpose, partial 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?

Explicitly covers all three cases: use directly when a complete legal ID pair is present, call the corresponding first-level comment tool when only post_id/link/share text exists, and ask the user when post location info is missing. This is textbook when-to-use/when-not routing.

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 provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns '一级评论' (first-level comments only) and supports pagination, which is useful scope info. But it does not disclose rate limits, ordering defaults beyond what schema says, or response characteristics.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core action (get comments by post_id) and appends the pagination capability. 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?

With annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema plus an output schema, the description needs only to state scope and the first-level-comments constraint, which it does. It could mention behavior on invalid post_ids or sorting defaults, but that is minor given the rich 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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema (including sort_type enum semantics and page_token immutability rules). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource: retrieves first-level comments for a given Weibo post, keyed by post_id, with page_token pagination noted. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like weibo_get_post_comment_replies_by_comment_id (replies) and weibo_get_post_comments_by_post_url (URL variant), but doesn't explicitly name them.

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 (fetch top-level comments given a post_id, paginate with page_token). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the URL-based variant or the replies tool, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool 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 already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds the behavioral detail that only top-level comments are returned and that page_token pagination is supported. The input schema further discloses the article-link special case and opaque token rules, so the behavioral picture is clear.

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?

One compact sentence conveys the operation, input forms, comment level, and pagination with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read-only annotation and a rich input schema plus output schema, the short description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could add an explicit pointer to the by-post_id sibling for agents that already have an ID, but the naming and schema cover most of that 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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are unusually detailed (post_url accepted forms, sort_type consistency, page_token opacity). The top-level description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating URL/share-text inputs, 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 states a specific verb ('获取'), a clear resource ('微博帖子一级评论'), and the accepted input forms ('链接、短链接或分享文案'), plus pagination support. This distinguishes it from the by-post-id sibling and reply tool by name and by the top-level comments scope.

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 makes the intended input context explicit: post URLs, short links, or share texts, and specifies '一级评论' so agents know it is not for nested replies. It does not name the by-post-id alternative or explicitly say when not to use it, but the URL-based scope and sibling naming provide clear context.

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 established. The description's 'get' is consistent with those annotations, but it adds no further behavioral context such as auth, rate limits, or pagination. 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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. The key information — the resource and the lookup key — is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity, full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers the essential invocation context. It only omits explicit sibling routing, which is a minor 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 100% and the post_id parameter is already described as a long ID reusable from other Weibo results. The description merely restates that post_id is the lookup key and adds no additional semantic 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 uses a specific verb (获取/get) with a clear resource (微博帖子详情/Weibo post detail) and identifies the lookup key (post_id). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling weibo_get_post_detail_by_post_url and makes the tool's role 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 post_id wording implies the tool should be used when a post ID is already available, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the by_post_url variant or provide any exclusion conditions. 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as handling of article links or error conditions. The parameter description mentions article behavior, but that is not part of the tool description itself. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict or add significant behavior beyond the read-only 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It has no filler or redundant phrasing, and the key input variations are mentioned upfront.

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 an output schema and only one well-documented parameter, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and input type sufficiently for a read-only operation. The only slight gap is the lack of explicit alternative tool routing, but that is minor.

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 a very detailed post_url parameter description explaining accepted formats, what to avoid, and article link behavior. The tool description merely repeats the input types (link, short link, share text) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 post details from a Weibo post link, short link, or share text. The verb '获取' (get) with the specific resource '帖子详情' (post details) is distinct from sibling tools like weibo_get_post_detail_by_post_id, which uses an ID instead of a URL. It fully distinguishes its purpose.

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. It implies usage when a URL is available, but does not directly mention the by_post_id sibling or any exclusion criteria. The parameter description adds a negative constraint ('do not pass user profile URL or post_id') but no positive routing 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 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. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning page_token pagination and explaining that article links return article content while comments, likes, and reposts use the associated Weibo post. The schema further discloses token opacity and non-reusability, adding meaningful behavioral detail beyond 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 main description is a single compact sentence in Chinese that conveys purpose and pagination support with no filler. The extensive token-handling guidance is properly placed in the schema rather than cluttering the description.

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 rich output schema, exhaustive parameter descriptions, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the tool description completes the picture by specifying accepted input forms and pagination support. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 highly detailed descriptions for both post_url and page_token. The tool description itself only adds a general mention of page_token pagination, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the rich 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 states the tool retrieves a Weibo post's liker user list from a post URL, short link, or share text, and supports page_token pagination. It clearly identifies the operation and input kind, distinguishing it from the by_post_id sibling. The parameter description further reinforces exclusions like user profile links and post_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 and post_url parameter provide clear context on valid inputs: post page links, article links, short links, or share text. It also explicitly excludes user profile links and post_id, and explains article-link behavior. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., the by_post_id tool) for cases where 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 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, which matches the read-only nature of fetching a repost list, so no contradiction. The description adds pagination behavior ('支持 page_token 翻页') which is useful context. However, the detailed token-handling rules are already in the schema, so the description contributes only modest additional behavioral context beyond 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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose (fetch repost list by URL) and appends the pagination capability. 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 output schema exists (return values need no description), both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations carry the read-only safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It could marginally improve by naming the by_post_id sibling, but the input-method distinction is already 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%, with both post_url and page_token thoroughly documented in the schema (link types, token opaqueness, no-modification rules, single-chain restriction). The description confirms pagination exists but adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 verb (获取/fetch), resource (微博转发列表/Weibo repost list), and the input method (帖子链接、短链接或分享文案/post link, short link or share text). It also mentions pagination support. This clearly distinguishes it from the by_post_id sibling since it specifies URL-based input rather than an 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 when to use the tool (when you have a post link, short link, or share text) but does not explicitly mention the alternative weibo_get_post_repost_list_by_post_id or state when NOT to use it. The exclusion guidance (don't pass profile links or post_id) lives in the schema, not the description, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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.