Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: no post/user payloads are returned and pagination is unsupported. It stops short of describing result shape or latency, but the output schema exists to cover return values.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core purpose (联想词) before the exclusions and the routing alternatives. Every clause earns its place, though the semicolon chain is slightly compressed.

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 annotations covering safety, a full output schema covering return values, and 100% schema coverage on the single parameter, the only remaining burden is routing and scope — both fully handled. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already explains that keyword is a search term/phrase rejecting links, IDs and pagination tokens. The description only hints that the returned text can be reused for post search, which is output semantics rather than added parameter meaning. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching Weibo search-box autocomplete/suggestion terms. It immediately bounds the scope by declaring what is NOT returned (posts or user details) and no pagination, so an agent can distinguish it from weibo_search_posts and the get_post_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: if a clear search term already exists, go straight to post search using the suggestion text; if a post or profile link already exists, use the corresponding detail tool. This names both alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.