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.