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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: the exact card fields returned and the nuanced meaning of isStub (placeholder vs claimed real person). It stops short of describing ordering/pagination behavior beyond the schema default.

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 a bracketed 【何时用】 trigger, then return shape, then drill-down, using clear section markers. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the card fields and flagging the isStub semantics. For a read-only list tool whose annotations already cover safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the default (12) and range (1-50). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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 a specific verb (list/列) and resource (主理人/creators) with an explicit scope qualifier (热门/most popular). Combined with the when-to-use cue and the drill-down pointer to get_creator, an agent can distinguish it from broad siblings like search_people or list_talent 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?

The 【何时用】 block gives concrete trigger conditions ("one-person company people", "most popular creators"), which is clear usage context. It also names the natural follow-up tool (get_creator), but does not exclude adjacent alternatives such as list_talent or search_people, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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