每周必看单期

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 default-to-latest behavior and names the return fields (title, link, tags), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about paging, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it fetches, the default-argument behavior, then the payload fields. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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 four all-optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and return fields. With no output schema, the mention of returned title/link/tags is the needed compensation; only cross-tool routing is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: 'number' has no default in the schema, and the description supplies the important semantic that no number means the latest issue. It does not cover limit, tag_limit, or include_tags, but those are documented in 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 states a specific verb+resource ('获取指定期数的每周必看视频列表') and pins it to an endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It also implies single-issue scope ('单期'), which separates it from weekly_issues, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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 one genuinely useful usage note is that omitting 'number' returns the latest issue, which tells the agent how to call it with zero arguments. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over weekly_issues, popular_list, precious_list, or rank_list — the agent has to infer the split.

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