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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the feed contains almost no user-generated posts, there is no user posting entry, following requires login and is usually empty. This prevents an agent from misdescribing the feed as a community. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well structured with bold headers, a when-to-use section, a critical semantic caveat, and feed options. Every sentence adds needed context; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers usage context, feed semantics, auth requirement, and the critical community-vs-official distinction. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the attachType+attachId pairing for finding content attached to a product/activity/park, and clarifies that following is usually empty because there are few user posts. It does not elaborate on limit/cursor/topic, but those are already documented in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the official content stream (官方内容流) containing daily product picks, startup competition opportunities, park and policy info. It differentiates this from a user community feed, which helps distinguish it from sibling feed tools, but it never names an alternative explicitly and lacks a direct verb statement in the description itself (the verb only appears in the title).

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】 section explicitly states when to use: when the user wants recent site recommendations or new startup competition opportunities, and when passing attachType+attachId. It also gives a strong when-not warning (do not describe as community, no posting entry). However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools by name, so routing between feeds is partly left to inference.

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