实时数据/微博热搜

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what data format it returns, or any rate limits or constraints. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, making it impossible for an agent to understand how the tool 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 extremely concise—just the tool name repeated—but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It lacks any structure or front-loaded information, failing to communicate purpose or usage in a way that earns its place. While short, it doesn't achieve conciseness through clarity or efficiency.

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 complexity implied by real-time data fetching and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of hot searches, timestamps, rankings), how to interpret results, or any operational context. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description fails to provide essential information for effective use.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it doesn't add or detract from parameter understanding. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the absence of parameters means there's no burden on the description to explain them.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., other real-time data tools like '实时数据/知乎热榜' or '实时数据/抖音热榜'). It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from alternatives, leaving the agent with no information to make an informed selection among similar tools.

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