playlet-douyin-feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behaviors: the daily 15:00 update schedule, the restriction on querying future dates, and the critical rule that dates without data require confirmation and cannot auto-fallback. This goes well beyond a generic query description, though it stops short of describing response format or error handling.

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 dense sentence front-loads the purpose and then adds only high-value behavioral constraints. Every clause carries operational information with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling semantics: what is returned, when data is fresh, and the non-obvious date/fallback rules. It doesn't describe the response shape, which would be useful given there is no output schema, but for invoking the tool correctly it is nearly sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for the date parameter by specifying data freshness semantics and the allowed range, plus the no-fallback rule. The count parameter is not enriched, but the overall parameter semantics are meaningfully improved.

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/获取') and resource ('抖音短剧作品'), and specifies the ordering ('点赞量排序') and filter ('按日期'). This makes the tool's core function clear and it can be distinguished from other playlet feeds by platform and content. However, it never explicitly names a sibling tool or states what it is not, so explicit differentiation is missing.

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 concrete operational constraints for the date parameter (must be ≤ latest data day, no automatic fallback, confirm no-data dates), which is useful. But it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like playlet-bili-feed or douyin-daily-hot; the use case is only implied by the name and platform focus.

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