获取个股活跃大V

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

注解已经声明readOnlyHint、idempotentHint和destructiveHint=false，覆盖了安全性和副作用信息。描述本身只复述“获取列表”，没有额外补充鉴权、速率限制或分页等行为信息，但不与注解矛盾。

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?

描述只有两句话，第一句直接点明核心功能，第二句补充使用场景，信息密度高且无冗余。结构紧凑、有效。

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?

对于简单的只读列表工具，注解和schema已经覆盖安全性、参数边界和默认行为，且存在输出schema。描述虽未解释分页或具体排序，但“活跃”一词和start/count参数已能支撑正确调用，整体足够完整。

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?

输入schema对所有3个参数都有完整描述，包括symbol的格式示例、count的默认值与范围、start的偏移含义，schema覆盖率为100%。描述未额外增加参数语义，按基线评为3分。

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?

描述以“获取”明确点出动作，并直接给出资源“某个股票下的活跃大V/KOL列表”，功能清晰。该资源与sibling工具（如get_user_profile、search_users、get_hot_posts）有明显区分，不存在歧义。

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?

描述提供了明确的应用场景“适合发现关注特定标的的意见领袖”，让智能体知道何时使用该工具。但未提及不适用场景或与search_users等搜索类工具的替代关系，尚未达到最高标准。

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