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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate that. It adds real context beyond the annotations: results are ordered newest-first, each item includes a content ID and basic engagement metrics, and billing is ¥0.1 per successful call with automatic refunds for failures or empty results.

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 wording is dense and front-loaded, with the return shape placed before the usage scenarios and pricing. The clause "返回该账号发布的内容列表" slightly restates the opening sentence, but overall the text has almost no wasted wording.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by describing the time ordering and the fields each item contains. Pricing and failure semantics are also covered, leaving only minor gaps such as the result count per page.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including uid, page, and the _token fallback. The description adds nothing specific about parameter meaning or pagination behavior, 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 and resource ("获取微博用户帖子列表") and states the scope (posts published by that account), which makes it distinguishable from weibo_user_info, weibo_post_detail, and weibo_keyword_search without opening a 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 gives concrete use cases (monitoring an account's update frequency, tracking its content strategy, or bulk-fetching content IDs). It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool, nor does it name a sibling alternative, but the intended context is clear.

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