get_content_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return contents (synopsis, cast, rating, etc.) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential specifics like authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details. Every word earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (synopsis, cast, rating, episode count, update schedule, play links, regions/subtitles), providing a clear picture of what the tool returns. It could mention error handling or authentication, but for a simple single-parameter lookup, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'id' parameter, but the tool description adds meaningful provenance ('obtained from search_content or get_trending') and a concrete example ('qyn3'), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent acquire the correct ID.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific drama, movie, variety show, or anime on WeTV/Tencent Video'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific content item rather than searches or lists, and enumerates the types of details returned.

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 obtaining comprehensive details about a single content item, contrasting with sibling tools for searching, trends, popularity, episodes, or recommendations. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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