get_user_profile

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 states that the tool retrieves public profiles and implicitly warns against private data, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or how the tool handles missing/invalid identifiers. The input guidance is present, but behavioral transparency beyond the basic function is minimal.

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 short sentences in Chinese. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives input options and a usage warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema details. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what fields or structure the returned profile contains, nor any platform-specific variations. It also does not describe error conditions or how the verbosity parameter affects output. Despite the schema covering parameters, the description leaves the agent under-informed about the tool's actual return value and edge cases.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that user_id, sec_user_id, and share_text are alternative ways to identify the user, and that sec_user_id is Douyin-specific. This supplements the schema's individual parameter descriptions and helps the agent choose among them.

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 as '获取公开用户资料' (get public user profile), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also notes that it accepts multiple identifier types (user_id, sec_user_id, share text), further clarifying scope. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like get_user_posts or social_search, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a clear context: this tool is for public user profiles, with a direct instruction on what to pass (user_id, sec_user_id, or share text). It also includes a when-not directive ('不要用于获取私密账号数据' – do not use for private account data). However, it does not mention alternative tools for other use cases (e.g., getting user posts or comments), so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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