douyin_hot_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication requirement ('需要登录 cookie') and the exact return format, which is useful. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or potential errors, but for a simple hot-list tool, this level of transparency is reasonable.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose and auth requirement, followed by the return schema. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no parameters and a simple hot-list output, the description covers purpose, authentication, and the return structure. It does not explain each field (word, hot_value, position, label), but these are self-explanatory in context. The inclusion of the return schema satisfies the output contract, making the description reasonably 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the output structure instead.

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 identifies the resource as '抖音实时热搜榜' (Douyin real-time hot search list), specifying the platform and the type of data (hot list). It distinguishes from sibling hot-list tools like weibo_hot_list and zhihu_hot_list by naming '抖音'. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the noun '榜单' implies retrieval, and the tool name itself signals the action.

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 provides a key usage prerequisite: requiring a login cookie and directing first-time users to guided_login. This gives actionable context for when to use this tool in sequence with another tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives for similar hot-list tools.

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