实时数据/百度热榜

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it gives no information about what the tool does operationally—whether it fetches, streams, or processes data; its rate limits; authentication needs; or output format. The description is essentially empty, failing to convey any behavior beyond the tool's name, which is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While the description is extremely concise (just the tool name repeated), this is not a virtue but under-specification. It lacks any structure or front-loaded information, failing to provide a purpose or usage context. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here, the brevity results in an ineffective description that does not help the agent understand the 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?

Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving real-time data from Baidu's hotlist), the description is completely inadequate. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description adds no context about what the tool returns or how it behaves. For a data-fetching tool with many siblings, this leaves the agent without essential information to use it correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). According to the rules, for zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it does not contradict the schema, so it meets the baseline requirement without adding extra value.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., use this for Baidu-specific trends vs. others for different platforms). Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately among the many similar hotlist tools available.

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