huoQuRenWu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '获取' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether a missing character errors or returns empty, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or what the '详细信息' payload contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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 one-parameter lookup this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about the returned '详细信息' structure and lookup failure behavior. It leaves the agent guessing at return semantics.

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 the single parameter mingZi is already documented as '人物姓名' in the schema. The description adds no matching rules, format, or ambiguity handling beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('获取指定人物' – get the specified character) and signals a detail-level retrieval via '详细信息'. It is distinguishable from a list tool, but it does not name or contrast with its obvious siblings (lieJuRenWu, chuangJianRenWu) to sharpen selection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer this over lieJuRenWu (list) or how a name is expected to be matched.

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