rank_hotspots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the hourly refresh cadence, that pagination follows next_offset, and — most valuably — that *_ref/*_refs media handles are short-lived and only valid for the lifetime of this MCP service run. It stops short of stating read-only semantics or error/empty-result behavior, but the reference-lifetime disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait agents need.

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?

Purpose and pagination are front-loaded, which is good, but the image_view handoff is stated twice (once for cover_ref in the hotspot paragraph, again for *_ref/*_refs in the closing paragraph), so the second paragraph partly repeats the first. The field enumerations are dense but reasonably earned since there is no output schema.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields for both the hotspot mode and the inspiration mode, and by explaining the media reference scheme. Only the optional instance_id/project_path scoping story is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 the schema already documents offset, count, topic_id, instance_id, and project_path; the description mostly restates the paging and the topic_id mode switch. It adds only the return-field lists per mode, not new meaning for the parameters themselves, so baseline 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 names a specific resource (抖音热点榜, sorted by 热度, refreshed hourly) with a clear verb-like action of ranking/listing, and it explicitly describes a second mode: passing topic_id returns the inspirations under that hotspot. This distinguishes it well from generic siblings like rank_list or inspiration_list, though it never explicitly names which sibling to prefer.

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 gives one solid routing rule: pass topic_id to switch from the hotspot list to that hotspot's inspirations, and hand media refs to image_view. But there is no guidance on when to use this instead of rank_list, rank_subjects, rank_innovation, or inspiration_list, and no prerequisites for instance_id/project_path are stated in prose.

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