搜索用户

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what information is returned (user ID, nickname, fan count), which goes beyond the schema. It does not introduce any contradictions and appropriately supplements the annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose ('搜索雪球用户') and immediately follow with the key capability (keyword search, returned fields). There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only search tool. It explains the core action and what data is returned. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema, and the output schema exists to define return structure. The absence of explicit usage guidelines is a minor gap but does not undermine completeness given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so all parameters (query, page, count) are already documented with descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter semantics—only that the keyword is for searching, which is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on pagination behavior or formatting, but the schema handles that.

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 a specific verb and resource: '搜索雪球用户' (search Xueqiu users). It specifies that it searches by keyword for big V users and returns user ID, nickname, fan count, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_profile (which retrieves a specific user's profile) or get_my_following (which lists followed users).

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 implies the tool is for searching users when the exact user is unknown, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_profile or get_current_user. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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