fanqie_genre_heat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: results are sorted by total reads ('按在读总量排序') and reflect current conditions ('当前'). However, it does not explain response shape, aggregation granularity, or how the 'new' rank differs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 entire description is one compact, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and the most important sorting behavior without filler or redundancy.

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?

With three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain how to control top N, ranking mode, and channel. It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool beyond its defaults.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly references the 'read' ranking mode via '按在读总量排序'. The 'top', 'rank', and 'channel' parameters and their enums are not explained, so an agent cannot confidently know how to set them for different needs.

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 tool aggregates genre heat and identifies currently popular categories ('题材热度聚合', '识别当前吸量赛道'), with a specific sorting criterion. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the genre-heat focus is sufficiently distinct from generic ranks, trends, and hotwords.

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 phrase '识别当前吸量赛道' gives clear context: use this tool to see which genres are attracting reads right now. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is reasonably explicit.

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