bilibili_search_hot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are 'real-time' (实时); it says nothing about refresh cadence, result shape, or what happens on upstream failure, which would matter for an open-world read.

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?

A single short sentence with the discovery tag front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail elsewhere.

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 no output schema and no annotations about return content, the description never indicates what a hot-search entry contains or how limit shapes the response. For an open-world discovery tool, that omission leaves the agent unable to predict results.

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?

There is one parameter (limit, 1-50, default 10) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent gets no guidance on what limit controls or the effect of hitting the 50 cap, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (实时搜索热词), making clear this returns trending search terms rather than performing a search. This distinguishes it reasonably from the sibling bilibili_search, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 [发现] tag hints at a discovery use case, but there is no statement of when to use this versus bilibili_search, bilibili_popular, or bilibili_ranking. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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