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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by explaining the isStub flag (crawler-imported placeholder vs. claimed real person) and the card payload shape, but it never explains what makes a creator '热门' (ranking/ordering logic) or whether results are paginated beyond limit — meaningful gaps for a discovery list.

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?

Three compact segments: usage trigger first, then returned fields, then drill-down hint — front-loaded and free of filler. The bracketed 【后续 drill-down】 marker is slightly stylized but does aid scanning rather than waste space.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the calling context and the shape of returned cards, which is what an agent needs to decide and act. The only missing piece is how ordering/'热門' is determined, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%; the single limit parameter is documented in the schema as item count with a default of 12. The description says nothing about limit or the cap of 50, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the 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 states the resource concretely — a list of 主理人 (one-person-company creators) returned as cards — and enumerates the card fields (昵称/头像/简介/作品数/isStub), so an agent can tell it apart from get_creator or search_people. The verb 'list' is only implied via the tool name rather than stated, which keeps it 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?

It gives an explicit trigger scenario ("用户想看『有哪些做一人公司的人』『最热门的主理人』时") and routes follow-up work to get_creator for a single creator's full work list. It does not say when NOT to use this versus sibling discovery tools like search_people or list_talent, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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