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.