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.