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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says '详情' and does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs (despite _token in schema), rate limits, or returned fields. Minimal implied retrieval behavior earns a 2.

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 a single front-loaded phrase with zero waste and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. Structure is minimal but effective, keeping it from a full 5.

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 simple detail lookup with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits any mention of return values or behavioral context, leaving clear gaps.

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 both answer_id and _token documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource '知乎回答/帖子详情' (Zhihu answer/post details), which clearly implies retrieving post details and distinguishes from sibling zhihu_comments by focusing on posts rather than comments. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over zhihu_comments or other Zhihu endpoints; usage is only implied by the tool name.

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