multi-content-feed

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It does add useful context: '数据每日15:00更新前一天' and the platform-number mapping. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, default behavior when no date is provided, or the structure of the returned top-50 results. This is adequate but shallow for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then platform codes, then update cadence. Every sentence carries information relevant to invoking the tool correctly. It is slightly dense, especially with the platform-code list, but it avoids redundancy and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by clarifying return structure. It hints at results via 'Top50榜单' and '爆款作品', but doesn't specify whether the list is per-platform or combined, what fields are returned, or how keyword filtering affects results. The update schedule and platform list are valuable, but the absence of output details leaves noticeable gaps.

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%, but the description adds essential meaning for the 'platforms' parameter by mapping numeric codes to platform names (0公众号, 1抖音, 2视频号, 3小红书, 4快手, 6B站). The date and keyword parameters gain no additional explanation, but the platform-code mapping is a substantial enhancement over the bare schema. This lifts the score above 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 '全网内容出海Top50榜单查询', a specific verb (查询) and resource (Top50 list of content going overseas), and then enumerates the six covered platforms. This clearly distinguishes it from single-platform sibling tools like douyin-ai-feed or bilibili-keywords-search. The platform list and 'Top50榜单' scope make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context ('按日期获取', '数据每日15:00更新前一天') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer from the multi-platform scope why this tool should be chosen over platform-specific siblings. This is a significant gap.

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