get_up_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — no auth requirement, no rate limit, no caching or freshness note — and the field list it does give is redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

Very short, but the brevity comes from omission rather than tight construction — it is a bare field list with a parenthetical gloss, lacking a leading verb or use context. Nothing is padded, but nothing is front-loaded either.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is when to reach for this tool versus its many siblings, leaving the definition adequate but not self-sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with a description explaining it accepts either an author_url or a numeric mid. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates returned fields (昵称、签名、等级、粉丝数…) and adds the gloss 'uploader profile, channel info, followers', which implies a profile-fetch, but it contains no verb and never states it retrieves UP主 profile data. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_up_videos or get_video_info.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. needing an author_url from another tool), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the field list.

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