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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the non-obvious two-stage retrieval: editorial picks are searched first and the scope only expands to all public items when picks return nothing.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the scope and accepted query types are front-loaded, and the fallback behavior follows. Every clause carries information.

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 search tool with no output schema and four well-documented parameters, the description covers scope, query domain, and the picks-then-expand behavior. It omits any mention of the category or limit parameters, leaving a small gap but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value the schema lacks: it enumerates the entity types q accepts (topic, company, model, product, person) rather than just restating the 2–200 character bound. It does not, however, add anything about category or limit semantics.

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 ("BITHOT's latest 7 days") plus the accepted query types (topic, company, model, product, person). This clearly distinguishes it from the time-window retrieval siblings like bithot_get_latest and bithot_get_daily, though it never names those siblings 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 query-entity list implies when to reach for this tool (finding items about a subject), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance or statement of prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the verb and scope.

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