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.