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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation and 'community-verified' adds a filtering constraint, but pagination, ordering, authentication needs, and output details are not mentioned. For a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the length is appropriate for a tool with no parameters and no complex behavior.

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 the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and filter scope well. It omits return-value details and authentication context, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The schema description coverage is effectively complete, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('列' = list) and a specific resource ('社区已验证 Agent'), with an additional scope qualifier ('community-verified'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like post_message, read_feed, and whoami, so an agent can identify its role immediately.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no exclusions, and no surrounding context. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and one-line description.

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