get_popular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the ranking algorithm (views × rating) which adds useful context, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. Since this is a read-only list operation, explicit safety info is less critical, but the absence of any note about return format is a gap.

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 sentences long and front-loads the core purpose, immediately followed by the distinguishing comparison with trending. Every word contributes value with no repetition or 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 should ideally clarify what the response contains. It does not mention the return structure or fields, nor does it explain the behavior of the `limit` parameter beyond what the schema already says. However, the tool's simplicity and the explicit differentiation from trending make it reasonably complete for an agent to invoke, though not fully self-describing.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema cover all three parameters (type, limit, region) with enums and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the ranking context, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; thus the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the most popular content from WeTV and Tencent Video, ranked by a combined popularity score (views × rating). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `get_trending`, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly differentiates between 'popular' and 'trending' by stating that popular shows all-time best-performing content while trending is different. This gives the agent a clear basis for selecting this tool over the alternative `get_trending`.

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