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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature (取), the absence of auth requirements (免 key), and what is deliberately omitted from the response (不含私密素材). It does not address error behavior, rate limits, or what happens for invalid/private page_ids, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by scope, auth note, parameter provenance, and a URL example — every sentence adds distinct information with no padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, returned fields, private-material exclusion, auth requirements, and parameter provenance. Only return-shape/error details are missing, which is a minor gap given the endpoint'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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies where page_id originates (zengzhi_directory entries) and shows the canonical URL pattern it maps to (https://zengzhi.life/directory/{page_id}). It still does not state the expected integer format or validity constraints beyond that.

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 and resource ('按 page_id 取单个公开展示页') and immediately scopes the content returned (笔名、简介、SKU 概览) versus what is excluded (不含私密素材). This clearly distinguishes it from the listing sibling zengzhi_directory, which it names as the source of page_id.

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?

Gives explicit upstream context: page_id must come from a zengzhi_directory entry, and the tool is free of key requirements (免 key). It does not state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with other detail tools like zengzhi_report_detail, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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