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

No annotations are provided, but the description proactively discloses data sourcing from public interfaces and a 5-minute cache. It does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, but '查询' implies read-only behavior.

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 concise sentences pack a clear purpose, parameter details, and behavioral notes without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple query nature and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what, how, and behavioral context. It omits error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a basic read-only tool.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description fully explains both parameters: platform enumerates all options and the default 'all', and limit specifies the numeric range (1-50) and default 20, providing complete semantic coverage.

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 queries real-time hot searches/lists on major platforms, identifies the specific platforms, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_platforms by focusing on the query action.

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?

It provides explicit parameter guidance including valid platform values and default, the range for limit and its default. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_platforms for when to use one vs. the other.

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