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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but gives no details about pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format.

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 noun phrase with no structure or front-loaded guidance. While extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise—it lacks the necessary context for an agent to properly use the tool.

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 simplicity of the tool and 100% schema coverage, the schema handles parameters adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values or usage context; it does neither, leaving significant gaps.

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 all three parameters (page, _token, aweme_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 '抖音视频评论列表' clearly names the platform (Douyin), the resource (video comments), and the operation (list). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like douyin_video or weibo_comments, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other comment-list tools within the suite.

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 any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool is, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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