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 useful behavioral context: the tool supports pagination and rejects video links as input. It does not spell out what the returned list contains, but an output schema exists to carry that, so this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by pagination support and the sibling routing hint. Nothing is redundant, though the clause order packs the disambiguation before the alternative is introduced, which is slightly less scannable than splitting it into two sentences.

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 only two parameters, 100% schema coverage, an existing output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what's needed: correct input type, pagination behavior, and routing to the ID-based sibling. The return shape is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the pagination token's continuation semantics and the profile_url format. The description only adds the negative 'don't pass a video link' hint, which the schema does not state, so it adds some meaning but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource pair ('按用户主页链接获取…用户发布视频列表' — get a user's posted video list by profile URL), states the scope, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling that takes a user ID. An agent can tell it apart from haokan_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_id without opening either 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?

It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ('已有用户 ID 时使用 haokan_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_id'), and adds a negative constraint ('不要传视频链接' — don't pass a video link), which covers a likely confusion with the *_by_url video tools. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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