实时数据/36氪热榜

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 or mutative, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., list format, data freshness). This 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?

The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification—it consists only of the tool name repeated. While not verbose, it fails to provide any useful information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no substantive content to justify its existence.

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, no output schema, and a description that merely repeats the name, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, leaving significant gaps for the agent. For a tool in a set of similar siblings, this minimal information is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate for any gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the absence of parameters means there is no semantic burden on the description beyond what the schema already covers.

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 exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., other hot lists like '实时数据/微博热搜') for comparison. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed choice among similar tools.

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