douyin_trending

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no login is required (免登录) and that each hot video comes with full engagement data, but it says nothing about result ordering, refresh cadence, result limits, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the resource, the variants, the payload value, and the auth posture with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no meaningful annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, why it matters, and that no auth is needed. Only volume/ordering details are missing, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the board enum and the videos default. The description reinforces the board variants and hints that the video feed carries engagement metrics, but it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (拿/fetch) and two concrete resources (抖音热榜 and 热点视频), and it enumerates the four board variants. The result is clear, but it never contrasts itself with sibling tools such as douyin_search or douyin_video_stats, so the distinction must be inferred from the resource name alone.

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?

"是每天选选题的第一站" supplies a concrete usage context: trend discovery and topic selection at the start of a workflow. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and names no alternative tool for deeper per-video analysis, which would have pushed this to a 5.

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