get_hot_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a count limit ('最多 30') in the args section, but doesn't disclose return format, sorting, pagination, or any side effects. This is a read operation by implication, but nothing explicit is stated.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose plus an args line. It front-loads the main purpose without any filler. The structure is efficient and easy to scan, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter constraint, which suffices for a simple retrieval tool. An output schema exists (though not shown) to cover return details, so that gap is mitigated. Still, it lacks context on ordering, recency, or what constitutes 'hot', making it only minimally 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'count: 条数，最多 30' which explains the parameter means number of items and caps it at 30—helpful beyond the schema's integer type and default. However, it doesn't elaborate on valid ranges or formatting, leaving gaps.

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 resource (Xueqiu homepage hot discussions) and its purpose (understand current market-wide topics). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_hot_stocks by focusing on discussions/posts rather than stocks. However, it uses a noun phrase ('雪球首页热门讨论') rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', though the intent is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention alternatives like get_hot_stocks, get_stock_discussions, or search_posts, nor does it give conditions for selection. The description simply states what it is without any contextual usage direction.

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