douyin-subscribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it reveals the scheduled daily 9:00 auto-pull behavior, HTML report generation, that account IDs are embedded directly in automation commands without file storage, and the exact output fields (title, favorites, comments, shares, likes, publish time). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and behavior at the 20-account cap, but the disclosed traits are far above average.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by ordered content on behavior, output format, use cases, and trigger words. It is slightly redundant ('生成 HTML 报告' and '自动生成精美 HTML 作品报告' both appear) but otherwise every sentence earns its place without excessive length.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, the 20-account limit, schedule, output format (HTML plus terminal/Markdown tables with listed fields), and use cases. The main gap is that none of the six parameters are mapped to their meanings, which an agent must infer from context.

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 nominally 100%, but every parameter description is tautological (e.g., 'pageNum' described as 'pageNum', and accountName typed as number), so the schema adds no real meaning. The description provides only indirect hints — subscribing via 抖音号 likely maps to shortId, and '账号 ID 直接内置于自动化命令中' relates to accountId/accountName — but never explicitly maps the six parameters, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with '抖音账号订阅追踪 — 通过抖音号订阅账号（最多20个）', a specific verb (订阅/subscribe) paired with a resource (抖音账号/Douyin accounts) and an explicit scope cap (20 accounts). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like douyin-search, douyin-account-diagnosis, and douyin-top-account, which serve different purposes. The trigger words and use-case sentence reinforce what this tool uniquely does.

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?

'当用户订阅抖音账号、追踪抖音作品更新、监控抖音竞品账号时使用' states clear conditions for use, and the trigger words ('抖音订阅、抖音账') give operational signals an agent can key on. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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