get_hot_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context that the data is current/real-time and not historical, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other operational details, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 composed of two compact sentences, delivering the core purpose and usage guidance without redundant phrasing or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and use-case boundaries. It could have added a note on the response structure, but the essential context for invocation is present. The platform restriction is implied by the schema's enum.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (platform enum and limit default/range), so the description offers no additional parameter-level semantics. The description's mention of 'current' applies to the tool's behavior, not to parameter specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the current hot/trending lists from social media platforms, using the verb '获取' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'current' trends, making its unique purpose evident.

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?

It explicitly states suitable use cases (answering today's hot topics, popular topics, real-time trends) and explicitly excludes keyword-based historical content search, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling social_search tool. However, it does not name the alternative tool directly, so it falls slightly short of full 5.

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