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.