实时数据/今日头条热榜

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about traits such as read-only vs. destructive operations, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The description fails to add any context beyond the name, making it inadequate for understanding how the tool behaves or what to expect from its execution.

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 phrase that mirrors the tool name, which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide any meaningful structure or front-loaded information. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description adds no value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 fetching real-time data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, data fields) or any behavioral aspects. With no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be useful, but it falls short, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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%, meaning there are no parameters to document. In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information. The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like '实时数据/微博热搜' and '实时数据/知乎热榜', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction for selecting among similar tools, resulting in a misleading or incomplete understanding.

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