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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the returned data fields (followers, likes, works count) and does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The schema covers token auth, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond the return content.

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 phrase with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., with a verb phrase) but it efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned data. However, it is missing usage guidance and sibling differentiation, leaving an agent with gaps when deciding among similar Douyin tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., sec_user_id meaning, token alternatives).

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 identifies the resource (抖音作者主页) and the returned metrics (粉丝/获赞/作品数), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like douyin_video or douyin_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name, which is insufficient for a clear routing decision among the many sibling tools.

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