douyin-daily-hot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only reveals that the tool is a read-style query ('查询'), but does not disclose what happens with empty parameters, how the date range behaves, what the 'type' values represent, or whether results are limited or paginated. The ordering-by-likes hint is useful but minimal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler words; it states the tool name's subject and the query function efficiently. It could have used the brevity to also convey behavioral details, but as written it wastes no words.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three loosely described parameters (including an ambiguous 'type'), the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently in edge cases. The presence of zero required parameters is not explained, and the agent cannot know what a no-argument call returns or what valid type values exist.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by framing the date parameters as belonging to a 'daily' ranking, but it does not clarify the meaning of the 'type' parameter (no enum, only a default of '1') or whether startDate/endDate must be used together.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair (查询/query + 抖音每日爆款榜/Douyin daily viral list) and adds a clear selection criterion: works ranked by highest daily likes. It is not a tautology of the name because the second clause adds the 'likes ranking' detail. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like douyin-hot-trend, douyin-rise-ranking, or douyin-weekly-surge.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no named sibling tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether date parameters should be paired. An agent is given zero context for choosing this over the many other Douyin ranking/trend tools in the sibling list.

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