get_creator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. '查…详情' clearly implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the handle/id is not found.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the resource and returned fields come first and the parameter format note follows. Everything earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: it covers what is returned and the creator identifier format. The only real gap is the enumeration of valid 'platform' values, which an agent could source from the list_platforms sibling.

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. It does well for 'creator' (handle without @, or platform id) but leaves 'platform' completely unexplained — no accepted values and no enum in the schema to fall back on.

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 ('查单个账号的详情') and even enumerates the returned fields (粉丝数、简介、作品数), which makes the single-account scope clear. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (search_creators), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase '单个账号' implies this is for a known account rather than discovery, which hints at the search_creators alternative, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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