SocialDataX 小红书 Xiaohongshu XHS RedNote MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds critical behavioral details: pagination token is opaque, context-bound, and must be passed unchanged. This goes beyond annotations.

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 relatively concise, front-loads the main purpose, and then details pagination rules. Each sentence adds value; length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need return details. It covers pagination, sorting, and token constraints. It clearly identifies '一级评论' (top-level comments), leaving no gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces constraints on note_id (24-char hex) and page_token (opaque, no modification), adding value beyond schema descriptions.

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 gets top-level comments for a note by note_id. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly (e.g., sub-comments tool exists), but does not explicitly mention when to use this over others.

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 explains how to use pagination and sorting, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as note detail or sub-comment tools.

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

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the opaque pagination token, its binding constraints (user, note, sort), and strict usage rules (no modification). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical token management specifics.

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 efficiently written with no wasted words, but it could be structured into clearer sentences for readability. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value, though the long token handling section could be condensed.

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 (pagination, sorting, token restrictions) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers input format, token behavior, and sorting options. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the overall context is sufficient for reliable 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides; it repeats token handling but primarily in narrative form. No additional parameter context is offered.

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 first-level comments from a single Xiaohongshu note via URL, short link, or share text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xhs_get_note_detail_by_note_url and xhs_get_note_sub_comments_by_comment_id by specifying the exact resource (comments) and level (first-level).

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 implicitly suggests usage for fetching first-level comments with sorting and pagination, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like xhs_get_note_comments_by_note_id (by note ID). It lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds important behavioral context about URL handling, which goes beyond annotations and reduces ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information, with no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is reasonably complete. The output schema likely covers the return format, so the description need not duplicate that.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 that the tool gets note details by note_id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool xhs_get_note_detail_by_note_url, missing a chance to clarify when to use which.

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 critical usage guidance about preserving the note_url when non-null and avoiding synthetic links when null. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over the URL-based alternative.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it mandates preserving the full returned note_url (including xsec_token) and prohibits synthesizing a public link when note_url is null. This is consistent with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the function, second provides critical handling instructions. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and important output constraints. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or limitations, but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter format. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, only output handling instructions.

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 it gets note details from a note URL, short link, or sharing text. This distinguishes it from sibling 'xhs_get_note_detail_by_note_id' which uses a note ID, providing specific verb and resource.

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 gives clear context for using this tool (when you have a URL/link), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative by note_id. However, the sibling list implies the differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral details about pagination: the next_page_token is opaque, bound to the current user/note/comment, and must be used exactly as returned without modification. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: purpose first, then pagination instructions. It is front-loaded and no word is wasted. The pagination sentence is long but necessary and clear; it could be split for readability but is still efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return value documentation is not needed. The description covers the key behaviors (pagination rules) and resource constraints. It does not mention error handling or auth, but annotations partially cover safety. Overall sufficient for a paginated list tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed rules for note_id and page_token. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning; it only contextualizes pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the semantic load.

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 opens with '根据 note_id 和一级评论 comment_id 获取二级评论,' clearly specifying the action (get) and resources (note_id, comment_id) for sub-comments. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xhs_get_note_comments_by_note_id which fetch top-level comments.

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 purpose implies usage: when you have a note_id and a top-level comment_id, use this tool. No explicit when-not or alternatives provided, but the sibling tools cover different scopes (search, details, user info), so selection is straightforward.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single short sentence, no waste. However, it lacks any structure or additional details that could help.

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 zero parameters, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. Could mention that it requires no input.

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?

Schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. Description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.

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?

Description clearly states verb (获取/get) and resource (小红书搜索热榜/search hot list of Xiaohongshu). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with notes, comments, and user data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description lacks context on scenarios or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about supported input formats (homepage link, short link, share copy) but no behavioral traits beyond that, and is consistent with annotations.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter), existing output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the profile_url parameter. The description's mention of input types mirrors the schema, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb (获取/get), resource (单个小红书用户信息/single Xiaohongshu user info), and input types (主页链接、短链接或分享文案/profile link, short link, or share copy), distinguishing it from sibling tools like xhs_get_user_info_by_user_id.

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 implies usage when a profile URL is available but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xhs_get_user_info_by_user_id or provide when-not context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as response format or rate limits, but also does not contradict annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could benefit from a brief note on the return format, though the output schema covers that.

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 (one required parameter, read-only operation), the description plus detailed parameter guidance and annotations are sufficient. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, providing detailed guidance on what values to use. The main description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 action ('获取') and the resource ('单个小红书用户信息'), and the method ('by user_id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like xhs_get_user_info_by_profile_url, which uses a different identifier.

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?

While the main description lacks explicit usage guidance, the parameter description for 'user_id' provides clear instructions on when to use this tool (when you have a user_id) and directs to the alternative profile_url tool when only a homepage link is available.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, detailing the opaque nature of next_page_token, its strict non-reusability across different entities, and explicit rules against modification. This fully informs the agent of the tool's constraints and operation.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical pagination token rules. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers pagination complexity and token constraints without needing to detail return values. It is complete for a list tool with this level of complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. However, the description adds meaningful extra details for profile_url (supported formats, instruction to use profile link not note link) and reinforces page_token rules, providing semantic value beyond the schema.

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 gets a list of posted notes from a user profile using a profile URL, short link, or share text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_user_id, which uses a user ID, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implicit guidance (e.g., '请传主页链接，不要传笔记链接') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_user_id. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given, limiting its helpfulness for tool selection.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation that may return unexpected properties. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the token being opaque and bound to the current query, which informs the agent about handling pagination.

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 concise: one sentence for the core purpose, followed by necessary token handling details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 complexity (two parameters) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects, including token binding and handling. No missing information for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: for user_id, it specifies not to use other identifiers (like xiaohongshu ID, nickname) and to copy from certain sources; for page_token, it describes how to use it correctly and what not to do, going beyond the schema's 'opaque' description.

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's function: '根据 user_id 获取用户已发布笔记列表' (get user's published notes list by user_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_profile_url by specifying the user_id parameter, and provides additional context about the pagination token.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when user_id is available vs. profile_url), but the naming convention implies usage when user_id is known. The detailed pagination token instructions serve as usage guidance for that specific aspect.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that long-polling is optional and that the tool does not trigger reprocessing, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, dense sentence in Chinese with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and the optional long-poll behavior. It does not explain error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple read-only status check with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description mentions long-polling, but the schema already states '可选长轮询等待秒数'. No additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 queries video speech-to-text job status, including optional long-polling and that it does not trigger reprocessing. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling submit tools.

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 implies usage for checking status of a submitted job, and distinguishes from submit tools by stating '不触发重处理' (does not trigger reprocessing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral rule: the returned note_url must be kept intact. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it lacks details on pagination, result limits, or behavior of sort/type parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence is somewhat long but conveys important information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate output handling), but overall efficient.

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 complexity (5 parameters, pagination, sorting) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key output handling rule. However, it omits context about pagination, the meaning of openWorldHint, and how sorting/filters affect results. It feels incomplete for a search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only explains a behavioral constraint on the output. No additional semantics for keyword, note_type, sort_type, page_token, or publish_time_range are provided.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: search notes by keyword. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on retrieving specific notes, comments, or user info. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The extensive instruction on URL handling is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions waiting time and return of job_id, but does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the note_id is invalid. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and 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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description's mention of job_id and next query action is adequate. It could explicitly reference the sibling tool for polling, but overall it provides sufficient context for a submission workflow.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description for note_id. The description does not add further semantic value beyond the schema. 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 verb (submit), resource (video note speech-to-text task), and identifier (note_id). It distinguishes from sibling tool xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_url by specifying the input type.

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 clear context: after submission wait up to 240 seconds, and if not completed, it returns a job_id and hints at a next query action (likely using xhs_get_video_speech_text_job). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternative by URL.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the async behavior, timeout of 240 seconds, and the return of job_id and next action on incomplete jobs. This goes beyond the schema and provides essential behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides key behavioral details. Efficiently front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 one-parameter submission tool with an output schema, the description covers the async workflow, timeout, and return values. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the note_url parameter beyond what the schema already provides (link, short link, or shared text).

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 action (submit a speech-to-text task) and resource (Xiaohongshu video note by URL). It distinguishes from sibling tool xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_id which uses note ID, so URL-based submission is uniquely identified.

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 explains the async nature: wait up to 240 seconds, then either get result or receive job_id and next query action. This implicitly guides when to use (submit task) and when to use sibling xhs_get_video_speech_text_job (to poll). Explicit alternative guidance is missing but context is clear.

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