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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: ordering (pinned first, then newest), included counts, cursor-based pagination, and a 1-credit cost, though it does not cover caching or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the useful details. The opening 'User posts.' largely repeats the tool name and title, so not every sentence adds new information, but overall it is efficient.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, ordering, pagination, and cost. The main omissions are the cache_max_age parameter and any mention of authentication or rate constraints.

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 coverage is 67%. The description explains cursor usage, but the schema already states the same cursor semantics. The handle format is covered by the schema, while cache_max_age remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specifies the resource and scope: public videos from a Kwai profile, ordered newest first after pinned items. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like kwai_post or kwai_profile, but the full sentence gives an agent enough to understand the tool.

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 description implies the tool is for listing a profile's public videos and gives pagination and cost info, but it never states when to use this versus kwai_post or kwai_profile. There are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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