get-douban-rank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '实时热门榜单' (real-time hot rankings) which implies dynamic data, but doesn't specify update frequency, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'real-time' means. It also doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination) or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise—one sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the core function ('获取豆瓣实时热门榜单') and adds useful details without redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes value, making it well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, limitations), and output information. For a ranking tool with multiple parameters and no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving all three parameters (type, start, count) unexplained. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the bare schema provides (e.g., what 'type' controls, what 'start' and 'count' do for pagination). With low coverage and no parameter info in the description, this falls below the baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose: '获取豆瓣实时热门榜单' (get Douban real-time hot rankings) with specific resources mentioned (books, movies, TV shows, variety shows) and data included (ratings and popularity). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Douban content rather than other platforms like Weibo, Zhihu, or news sites. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar ranking tools like get-bilibili-rank or get-smzdm-rank beyond the platform difference.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., use this for Douban content vs. get-weibo-trending for social media trends). The context is implied (real-time hot rankings) but lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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