HotAPI Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes the referenced schemas, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about lookup-failure behavior or result size.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification given the untouched parameters.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with explicit annotations, the description partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming what is returned. However, with zero parameter coverage and no error/edge-case guidance, it is only minimally adequate.

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 carry parameter meaning — and it does not. Neither 'method' nor 'path' is mentioned, nor is the required '/v1/' prefix pattern or the GET/POST/DELETE constraint on method.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus a concrete resource ('one exact HotAPI operation and the schemas it references'). The word 'exact' distinguishes it from an exploratory lookup, but it never names the sibling search_docs, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 statement of when to call this versus search_docs, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens when the method/path combination doesn't exist. The agent must infer that this is the precise-lookup counterpart to the search tool.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so restating 'Read-only' adds nothing; however, 'no API key required' is genuinely useful behavioral context absent from the annotations. Missing are result ordering, whether matches span multiple doc sections, or how empty results behave.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose statement leads and the secondary constraint follows. It is efficient, though the read-only clause duplicates the annotation and could have been spent on parameter guidance instead.

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-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the safety profile but stops short of the query semantics and result behavior an agent needs to call it well. Adequate, not complete.

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% and there are two parameters. The description says nothing about what 'query' should contain (keyword vs. natural-language, scope over integration vs. model docs) or what 'limit' controls, so it fails to compensate for the empty 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 (Search) and resource (HotAPI integration and model documentation), which is clearly more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_openapi_operation, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between free-text doc search and structured operation lookup.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling get_openapi_operation is never mentioned as an alternative. The 'Read-only; no API key required' clause is context about cost/safety, not guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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