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

注释已声明 readOnlyHint、idempotentHint、destructiveHint，说明这是安全只读操作。描述额外补充了返回内容包含 profile 和已发布作品列表，且按热度和发布时间排序，这对调用后的预期有实质帮助。

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?

描述精简，核心功能前置，随后用【何时用】【相关 resource】分段补充，没有任何冗余信息，每句话都有用途。

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?

这是一个单参数只读查询工具，描述涵盖了功能、使用时机、返回内容、排序方式和相关 deep link，虽然没有 output schema，但返回内容已被有效说明，整体完整度足够。

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?

参数 schema 覆盖率为 100%，id 已有“用户 id（cuid）”的说明。描述只重复“按 id”，没有提供超出 schema 的额外语义，符合高覆盖场景下的基线 3 分。

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?

动词明确（按 id 查），资源明确（主理人 profile + 已发布作品列表），并附排序规则。与 list_creators、get_creator_endorsements 等兄弟工具在内容上足以区分，不是泛泛的“查询”描述。

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?

【何时用】明确给出了使用场景：“用户想了解某位主理人在做什么、关注他/她的全部作品”。但没有说明何时不该用或给出替代工具的对比，因此未达到 5 分标准。

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