实时数据/虎嗅热榜

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 the tool's behavior—such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what data it returns. This leaves critical operational traits unspecified, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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—which avoids waste but is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure and fails to front-load key information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description, though it is not verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of hot topics from Huxiu), its purpose, or usage context. While the schema handles parameters adequately, the description fails to provide necessary context for understanding the tool's function and output.

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% (as there are no parameters to describe). In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there is no need for the description to compensate for parameter documentation. The description does not add parameter semantics, but that is acceptable given the absence 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 alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like '实时数据/知乎热榜' or '实时数据/微博热搜', leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among similar hot list tools.

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