get_author_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says it is an overview but does not state what fields are returned, whether it requires login, or whether it is read-only, leaving behavioral traits largely undisclosed.

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 core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse for a no-argument overview tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what the overview contains (e.g., totals, revenue, engagement). It says 'creation/revenue overview' but omits concrete return contents, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description is consistent with a parameterless call and adds no misleading hints about inputs.

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 resource ('作者级数据总览') and clarifies scope as site-wide creation/revenue overview, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name siblings like get_novel_stats or get_account_info, so the agent must infer that this is author-level rather than novel-level or account-level.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_novel_stats, get_account_info, or get_medal_summary, which all return related author/metric data. The agent must guess based on tool names alone.

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