zhihu_invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the logged-in account and date scoping, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits, rate limits, or handling of missing login, which are partially covered by the schema and 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the verb, resource, and scope with no superfluous words. It is optimally concise for a simple read operation.

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 low complexity (2 optional params), presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose adequately. Minor gaps remain around parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only implicitly references the 'day' parameter via 'one Asia/Shanghai date'. The 'max_pages' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource: 'the logged-in Zhihu account's answer invitations'. It also provides scope with 'for one Asia/Shanghai date', distinguishing it from sibling tools like zhihu_search and zhihu_content.

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 usage for checking answer invitations on a specific date, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives like search functions, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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