douban_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves reviews with pagination, but fails to disclose that it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a data-fetching tool, this is insufficient.

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 with no fluff, but it is critically under-specified. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary information, resulting in a score of 2 due to excessive sparseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions. It provides only the most basic context (the type of content and pagination), leaving the agent with significant unknowns for a simple paginated list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'start' for pagination but does not clarify 'subject_id' (what it is or how to obtain it) or 'limit' (its meaning or default). Only one of three parameters gains semantic value.

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 short reviews/film reviews of Douban items, using specific verb '获取' and resource '豆瓣条目的短评/影评'. It distinguishes from siblings like douban_subject and douban_search, and from review tools of other platforms.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites (e.g., need a subject_id from douban_search or douban_subject) or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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