get_trending_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the behavior (returns JSON frequency list) and default parameters, but does not mention potential limitations, error conditions, or data freshness. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and uses bullet points consistently. It is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeating '默认' multiple times) but remains readable and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, multiple modes) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics, return format, and usage examples adequately. It could be improved by mentioning when data is refreshed or how the config file works, but overall it is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, yet the description fully explains all three parameters: top_n (default 10), mode (daily vs current), and extract_mode (keywords vs auto_extract), including their default values and concrete options. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves trending topics statistics, with specific verb 'get' and resource 'trending topics'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_news and search_news by focusing on trending analysis. The modes (daily/current) and extraction methods (keywords/auto_extract) provide additional specificity.

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 provides clear context for when to use each mode and extract_mode, including examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like analyze_topic_trend or compare_periods, which could be considered for deeper analysis.

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