每周必看期数

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the endpoint mapping and confirms it is a listing of items rather than a mutation. It adds no detail on pagination, result count behavior, or data freshness beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the returned fields, and the upstream endpoint with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it stops short of anything else an agent might need.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how it maps to the source. The missing piece is any distinction from the similarly named sibling weekly_list.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is documented there (range 1-50, default 12). The description says nothing about the limit, so baseline 3 applies — it neither compensates nor adds value 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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (B 站每周必看的期数) and even names the returned fields (期数、主题、链接) plus the backing endpoint /v/popular/weekly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool weekly_list, which sounds highly overlapping.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this should be preferred over weekly_list/rank_list/popular_list, and no prerequisites or rate-limit caveats. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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