video_variety_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (DataFrame) and source URL, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, data freshness, or any limitations. It is consistent with annotations, hence not contradictory, but adds limited behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise, with a title, URL, and return type in three lines. It is front-loaded with the main identifier and contains no fluff. However, it is a bit terse and could be slightly more informative without being wasteful, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate by detailing what data is returned. It states '综艺节目' (variety shows) and 'pandas.DataFrame', but does not specify columns, time range, or content granularity. For a simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement. A more complete description would mention typical fields like program name, rating, or release date.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation since there are none. It correctly omits parameter explanation, and the schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving variety show (综艺节目) data from the Endata video platform, with a specific URL and return type. The verb is implied but not explicit; the naming and context distinguish it from siblings like video_tv. It lacks an explicit action word like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and scope are 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools. For a simple no-parameter tool, the context is clear that it returns variety show data, but no when-to-use guidance is given.

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