get_fans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('list[dict]') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another specifying the return type. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important usage and behavioral details.

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 complexity of a social media data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'fan information' includes, how pagination works beyond the 'page' parameter, or any limitations like maximum 'limit' values. For a tool that likely interacts with an external API and returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (uid, limit, page) with their purposes and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of fan information or pagination details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a Weibo user's fans'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_followers', which might retrieve a similar type of social connection data, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_followers' or 'get_profile'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the user must be public or authenticated, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.

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