get_creator_content

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

No annotations exist, so this carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful operational traits: space endpoints require WBI signing, unsigned calls return -799 'too many requests', and the correct seasons_series_list path. It omits pagination behavior, upper limits, and whether calls are purely read-only.

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 section list is front-loaded and useful, but the '为什么需要这条通道' motivation paragraph and emoji-heavy formatting consume space without helping invocation. The endpoint-path caveat is valuable but buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the section enumeration adequately covers what the agent will get back. Remaining gaps are the pagination contract (page/page_size interaction) and what mid actually identifies.

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% with 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well on section (five named values with meanings) and order (pubdate / click / dm), but says nothing about mid identity, page, or page_size semantics.

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+resource (fetch an UP creator's profile/works/posts) and enumerates the five section values with a short gloss for each. It also distinguishes itself from search_videos by explaining that search recalls by content and cannot retrieve 'what a given person posted later'.

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 an explicit use case (after narrowing a topic to 2-3 core creators, ask what they posted next) and names the alternative (search_videos) plus why it fails there. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite/rate-limit guidance beyond the endpoint warning.

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