search_hot_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden and does a good job: it discloses real-time freshness, topic-level granularity, absence of interaction counts, and the lack of Xiaohongshu data. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but this is a read-oriented search tool and the stated caveats are the most decision-relevant behaviors.

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 compact, front-loads the scope, and uses formatting/bold to highlight the key distinction. Every sentence earns its place: coverage, data granularity, usage routing, freshness, and an exclusion caveat.

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 an output schema exists and all four parameters are optional and documented in the schema, the description completes the picture: what the tool returns, when to use it versus alternatives, freshness, and an important data-source exclusion. No critical calling information 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, keyword, platform, and max_boards fully. The description adds useful context ('85 boards', no Xiaohongshu, topic-level data) but does not materially change parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '查全网实时热榜（85 个榜单）' and enumerates the covered platforms. It also differentiates itself from the content-search siblings by stating this is topic-level data (titles, ranks, heat values only) and that answering 'which content exploded' requires the other 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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use this tool: answer 'what is trending now'; for content-level explosion questions it points to the two sibling search tools. It also gives a negative boundary ('本数据源不含小红书榜') and points to list_hot_boards in the schema for valid platform names.

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