热搜 / 热门 / 排行榜

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and openness profile is covered. The description adds nothing further about behavior — no indication of what the results look like, pagination semantics, or mode-specific restrictions — but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 mode list is compact, parallel, and dense with meaning, using one clause per enum value. The trailing sentence about Bilibili-Evolved entry points adds little for an agent, and the payload is not front-loaded with a purpose statement, keeping it slightly below top marks.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema, multi-mode tool, the description covers the mode selector but says nothing about pagination or result shape for each mode, and the two numeric parameters remain undocumented anywhere. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to know what to expect back.

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 only 25% (only `region` has a description), so the description has to carry weight — and it does, defining all four `kind` enum values with their real-world meaning and flagging that `region` applies to ranking only. It leaves `page` and `limit` unexplained beyond their numeric bounds, which is the remaining gap.

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 enumerates the four concrete retrieval modes of the tool (hot search words, popular videos, per-region rankings, weekly must-watch), so an agent can tell this is a Bilibili trending/ranking fetch tool. It never states the operation in a single upfront verb+resource sentence and does not differentiate itself from siblings like bili_search, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 implicitly says which `kind` value to pick by glossing each one, and notes that region only applies to ranking. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g. use bili_search for keyword lookup instead), and no note on what happens for modes that ignore page/limit.

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