get_blogger_content_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the authorization requirement (scope) and the data completeness guarantee (full text vs. summary via post_media_text mention). It does not disclose rate limits or caching behavior, but covers the critical safety/auth aspects.

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 tightly constructed sentences: the first establishes purpose and key return value, the second states the auth prerequisite. Zero redundancy, efficiently front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description minimally compensates by mentioning one key return field (post_media_text), but fails to describe the complete response structure or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool but leaves gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured fields already define both parameters clearly (including the critical fact that post_id comes from list_topic_blogger_contents). The description adds no additional input semantics, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 the tool retrieves 'blogger content details' (获取博主内容详情) with the specific value-add of including 'full original text' (完整原文), which distinguishes it from the sibling listing tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus list_topic_blogger_contents.

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?

It provides essential prerequisite information (the scope topic.blogger.read is required), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_topic_blogger_contents. The workflow dependency is buried in the schema parameter description rather than the main description.

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