WeiboGetHotSearchDetail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that the word may not be found, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what 'detail' includes, whether it returns an error or empty result, or any other side effects. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and a supplementary behavioral note in the second. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 simple 1-parameter get tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, resource, and scope, and even prepares the user for a common failure case. Since there is no output schema, it could benefit from clarifying what 'detail' contains, but for a low-complexity tool, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, 'word', with a description 'The word to search for.' The tool description also mentions 'by word,' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies; neither the schema nor the description provides extra semantic richness.

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 'Get hot search detail by word from weibo' clearly states the action (get), resource (hot search detail), and scope (by word). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like WeiboGetHotSearch (likely a list) and WeiboGetHotSearchCommentByUrl (comments), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific word to look up in Weibo hot searches. It also provides an important usage note: 'Sometimes the word is not found, that's normal,' setting expectations for missing results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for clearer differentiation.

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