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 genuine extra scope context with '不返回作品列表', telling the agent this fetch excludes the video list. It stops short of return-format or pagination detail, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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 semicolon-delimited sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds sourcing, the alternative route, and the scope exclusion in priority order. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 a 100%-covered schema for the single parameter and a declared output schema, the only remaining burdens are routing and scope — both addressed. The agent has everything needed to select between the ID and URL variants and call correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3: the schema already documents the user_id pattern, sourcing options, and the non-empty constraint. The description's note about sourcing the ID from search results largely repeats what the schema already states, adding no new syntax or format meaning.

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 (获取) and resource (好看视频用户资料) scoped by user ID, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling haokan_get_user_info_by_url. The trailing '不返回作品列表' further sharpens what this tool is not.

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?

Says the ID comes from user search results and names the exact alternative (haokan_get_user_info_by_url) plus the condition that selects it (holding a profile link). Both the when and the when-not are present with no inference required.

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