douyin_browser_rank_video_potential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'lightweight' and 'versioned transparent rules,' but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to data. This is insufficient for the agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 sufficient detail. While brevity is positive, it does not earn its place because it omits critical information needed for correct tool use.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no enum constraints, the description is too thin. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what 'potential' means, how weights affect results, or what period options are valid. The agent would struggle to use this correctly.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The agent gets no help understanding 'limit', 'period', or 'weights' beyond their types and defaults.

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 that it generates a lightweight potential ranking, which gives a basic idea of the tool's purpose. However, the term 'potential' is undefined, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'douyin_browser_list_videos' or 'douyin_browser_get_video_performance'.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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