douyin-hot-trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the main mode-switching behavior (empty vs. filled dates) but does not describe the return shape, what happens if only one date is supplied, range limits, pagination, or sorting behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information: the resource, the default behavior, and the optional time-range capability.

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 simple two-parameter tool this is mostly adequate, but the lack of an output schema raises the burden on the description to clarify return expectations. It does not address edge cases like a single date being provided, and only vaguely indicates the output is '热门话题'. An agent could invoke it correctly, but some ambiguity remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable relational semantics by explaining that empty dates yield real-time results while filled dates query a specific period, reducing ambiguity around how the two optional parameters interact.

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 a specific verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('抖音热点趋势' - Douyin hot trends), and clarifies two modes: real-time hot list without dates, and hot topics for a specified time period. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like douyin-daily-hot or douyin-rise-ranking, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: leave dates empty for the real-time hot list, or provide a date range for historical hot topics. However, it does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance needed for a 5.

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