get-netease-news-trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the content scope but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 directly states the tool's function and content scope. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately front-loaded and concise for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what content to expect. However, it lacks details about return format, data structure, or limitations that would help an agent use it effectively. The completeness is minimal but acceptable for this complexity level.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than inputs it accepts. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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: '获取网易新闻热点榜' (get NetEase News trending list) with specific content categories listed. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source (NetEase News) and content type (Chinese news), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get-tencent-news-trending.

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. With multiple news/trending tools in the sibling list (e.g., get-tencent-news-trending, get-thepaper-trending), there's no indication of when NetEase News is preferred over other Chinese news sources or general trending tools.

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