trending-hub-top10

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read-only 'query', but does not disclose whether date parameters are required, what happens when they are omitted, how the TOP10 is determined, or any ranking/period behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no filler and the core scope is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves an agent without return-format context, date-range behavior, or any caveats about how the TOP10 is computed. It is enough to identify the tool's purpose, but not fully sufficient for correct invocation in nuanced user requests.

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%, with both startDate and endDate described as date strings in YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific operation ('查询' / query) over a clear resource ('全网热搜关键词 TOP10'). It clearly identifies the tool as a cross-network top-10 hot-search keyword query, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'trending-hub' or other platform-specific hot-search tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trending-hub', 'weibo-hot-search', or 'douyin-daily-hot'. The only implicit usage signal is the '全网' scope, but no exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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