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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description is free to add non-obvious operational facts: strict reverse-chronological ordering and an explicit pricing model (¥0.1 per call, billed only on success, refunded on failure or empty results). It omits page-size limits, maximum retrievable depth, and typical response latency.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then return shape, then usage, then billing — a sensible order with no filler. Minor redundancy between 投稿列表 and 返回该账号发布的内容列表, which restate the same scope.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (ordered list of items with IDs and engagement figures) and what it costs, which is what an agent needs to decide and budget. Remaining gaps like exact metric names are tolerable for a list-enumeration tool.

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%, with uid, page, and _token each documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about uid format (numeric mid) or page semantics; baseline 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 and resource (获取B站UP主投稿列表) and characterizes the payload: reverse-chronological list with per-item content ID and basic engagement data. This separates it from single-item siblings like bili_post_detail or bili_user_info, though it never explicitly contrasts with them or with channels_user_posts.

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 concrete use cases — monitoring an account's posting frequency, content strategy, or bulk-collecting that account's content IDs. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use bili_keyword_search for discovery rather than enumeration).

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