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

The description says reading does not count as viewed, does not clear the red dot, and does not count toward interest, implying a read-only operation with no user-state side effects. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, directly contradicting that no-side-effect behavior. Per the contradiction rule, this is scored 1.

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 structured with labeled sections (需要登录, 组合链, 口径/坑) and front-loads the purpose. It is longer than typical, but nearly every sentence carries operational value for an agent, with minimal waste.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex feed tool, the description covers login requirement, filter semantics, pagination pitfalls, truncation behavior, side-effect expectations, and even a prompt-injection warning about user-generated content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly despite the annotation inconsistency.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: recommend sorts by recency + relationship + interest while latest is purely chronological, and cursor pagination requires passing nextCursor back unchanged with nextCursor=null marking the end. It also notes that filters are encoded in the cursor.

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 resource (消息圈信息流) and what it contains (别人发的进展、资源、想法，可带图和一张站内卡片). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_moment, get_user_moments, comment_moment, like_moment, get_creator, and start_conversation as different steps or alternatives.

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?

Explicitly gives usage context: recommend vs latest sorting, the composition chain of this tool → get_moment → comment_moment/like_moment, and alternatives such as get_user_moments for a specific person's feed. It even advises '轻动作优先' before starting a conversation, which is actionable routing guidance.

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