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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact - the call submits an asynchronous task rather than returning data directly - but omits credit cost, rate limits, and the follow-up retrieval flow, so it adds only modest value.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the opening sentence is a trigger-keyword enumeration ('Reddit 帖子、Reddit posts、subreddit 帖子' plus a list of verbs) that is largely redundant filler. Structure is acceptable but not tight.

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 7-parameter async task-submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and mode selection but omits the essential workflow context - that a submitted task must later be polled via scraper_task_status/scraper_task_result. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all parameters, this gap is the main missing piece.

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 100%, so every parameter including the spider_id enum, sort_by values and mode-specific applicability is already documented. The description merely restates the three spider_id modes already present in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: it submits a Reddit post-collection Builder task ('提交 Reddit 帖子信息采集 Builder 任务') and enumerates the three spider modes it supports. This lets an agent identify it as the Reddit-post scraping entry point, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling reddit_comment 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?

It gives trigger conditions (user needs Reddit/subreddit post info combined with collect/scrape/get verbs), which implies when to use it. However it offers no explicit exclusions and never contrasts against alternatives such as reddit_comment or the generic scraper task tools, leaving the selection decision partly to inference.

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