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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results include days-from-today and preheat level, which is useful, but it does not disclose limits, ordering, response shape, or other behavioral caveats.

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 communicates scope, output highlights, and intended use without redundant or vague wording.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description and schema are nearly sufficient. It explains what the query returns, though the exact result structure and default behavior beyond the schema's 'default=90' note are slightly underspecified.

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%, so both category and days_ahead are already documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying 'N days', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and object ('查询未来 N 天的趋势节点') and enumerates concrete categories (科技展会/财报季/政策/电商大促/节假日). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_trending or future_signals by focusing on dated event nodes with preheating levels.

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 implies a use case ('用于提前布局内容') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over future_signals, get_trending, or discover_trending_topics, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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