douyin_browser_compare_videos

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the range 2-20 and the constraints of same source/time, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens if constraints are violated. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure such as a breakdown of input parameters or output. It is not overly long, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to set period or metrics, or what the output provides. With many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it only alludes to video_ids via the count 2-20, and does not describe period, metrics, or their meanings. The agent cannot infer correct usage without additional information.

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 states the tool compares 2 to 20 videos under the same source and time semantics, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_videos or get_video_performance. The verb 'compare' and resource 'videos' are specific. However, it is in Chinese and could be more explicit about what aspects are compared.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rank_video_potential or get_video_performance. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide.

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