实时数据/抖音热榜

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 adds nothing about how the tool behaves—such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what kind of data it returns. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely unspecified.

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, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It consists of a single phrase that repeats the name, failing to convey any useful information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this ineffective.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what it returns, leaving significant gaps in understanding. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this description is inadequate.

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 is no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., '实时数据/微博热搜' or '实时数据/知乎热榜'). The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no information to distinguish this tool from other similar tools in the server.

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