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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns user summaries and supports pagination. It does not mention rate limits or result-size behavior, but with the safety profile covered by annotations the remaining addition is meaningful.

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 compact sentence front-loads the primary purpose and appends the exclusion clause. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the purpose, scope, return type, pagination support, and the key exclusion, which is everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly among the numerous siblings.

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 the keyword and page_token semantics (including the 'do not modify/truncate/generate' constraint) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (搜索) and resource (好看视频用户、账号或创作者), and explicitly negates the adjacent resource (不用于搜索视频), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling haokan_search_videos. It also states what is returned (用户摘要) and that pagination is supported.

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 exclusion "不用于搜索视频" gives a clear when-not and routes the agent toward the video-search sibling without naming it. No explicit prerequisites or named alternative tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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