get-36kr-trending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what content is returned but provides no information about rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, freshness of data, or error conditions. For a trending/news tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every clause adds value by specifying content domains and information types. No wasted words, though it could potentially benefit from structural separation of purpose from content details.

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 apparent simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what content is returned. However, it doesn't address the parameter's purpose, return format, or behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent. For a trending tool among many similar siblings, more contextual differentiation would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the empty schema provides. However, with only one parameter and the tool appearing to be a simple fetch operation, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema deficiency is minimal.

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 the tool's purpose: '获取 36 氪热榜' (get 36Kr trending list) with specific content domains (entrepreneurship, business, tech) and types of information (investment/financing trends, emerging industry analysis, business model innovation). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 36Kr source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate content scope from similar news/trending 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 the 19 sibling tools (all news/trending/ranking tools). It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where 36Kr content would be preferred over other sources like BBC, NYTimes, or Weibo trending.

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