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

Beyond the annotations it discloses login requirement (需要登录), the result scope (no comments or likers), that the semantic leg runs and spends money on a vector search, and a don't-loop-in-a-cycle warning. This is rich behavioral context that the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints alone do not convey.

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?

Bracketed sections (需要登录 / 组合链 / 口径坑) front-load the critical constraint and organize the caveats well. Slightly dense, but each block earns its place with no redundant sentences.

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 compensates by stating that results exclude comments and likers, plus the login gate and cost/no-loop warning. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the output.

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% and both q and limit are already documented in the schema. The description notes keyword+semantic search but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the parameters already specify, so 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?

States a specific verb (搜) and resource (消息圈) and enumerates the fields searched (正文、作者昵称、挂的卡片标题), so an agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. This clearly distinguishes it from get_moment (single item), list_moments_feed (browse), and search_all (multi-domain).

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?

Provides concrete suitable-query examples (谁在说宠物硬件打样 / 有没有人发过出海渠道的资源) and an explicit downstream chain: this tool → get_moment → get_creator → start_conversation. When-to-use and where-to-go-next are both spelled out.

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