获取热门帖子

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the fact that it returns a filtered hot-post list; it does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not meaningfully extend them.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: the action, the filtering capability, and the intended use case. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool with zero required parameters, a rich output schema, and complete parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it, and the annotations cover behavioral safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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 all three parameters (page, count, scope) documented including defaults, bounds, and enum values. The description mentions the time-range filter, which mirrors the scope parameter, but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the exact action ('获取雪球热门帖子列表') and resource (hot posts), and adds the filtering dimension (day/week/month). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hot_stocks or get_post_detail by naming posts and the list nature.

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 gives clear usage context: it is suitable for discovering current market hot topics and can be filtered by time range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over closely related tools.

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