SocialDataX 小红书 Xiaohongshu XHS RedNote MCP

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

The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, noting the scope is the current API Key account. Since readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already provided, the description does not significantly enhance transparency, but it doesn't contradict them either.

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, concise sentence that is 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?

For a simple read-only query with no parameters, an output schema, and a clear description, the context is fully covered. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does without needing additional context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly includes no parameter documentation. The baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description doesn't need to explain 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries the current API Key account's SocialDataX points balance. It uses a specific verb (Query) and resource (points balance), and clearly differs from sibling tools that fetch social media content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's unique purpose (checking account points balance) is self-evident, and the usage is implied by its name and description.

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?

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 openWorldHint=true，描述没有矛盾，并补充了排序和翻页行为。但未提及错误处理、限流或返回格式细节，在注解覆盖安全的情况下，补充有限但非必需。

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?

描述仅用一句话（约 30 字）概括了工具的核心功能和两个关键参数，信息密度高，无冗余，完全符合简洁且前置的要求。

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?

工具具有一定的复杂度（排序、翻页），但参数和输出 schema 已存在，描述覆盖了核心要点，足以让 agent 理解基本用法。虽然未提及与兄弟工具的差异，但整体完整度足够。

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 描述覆盖 100%，每个参数都有详细说明（note_id 的复制要求、sort_type 枚举、page_token 用法）。描述本身只重复了参数支持的能力，没有额外增加语义。基线为 3 符合情况。

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?

描述明确说明工具做什么：根据 note_id 获取单篇小红书笔记的一级评论，并支持 sort_type 排序和 page_token 翻页。动词、资源、功能范围清晰，且与兄弟工具（如按 URL 获取评论）区分明显。

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?

描述指出使用场景和核心功能，但没有明确说明何时不应使用或与兄弟工具（如按 URL 获取评论）的选择标准。不过整体上下文足够清晰，用户容易理解何时该用此工具。

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 description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail by specifying it returns only first-level comments, and mentions sorting and pagination capabilities. No contradictions with annotations; the description enriches rather than conflicts with structured metadata.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes all necessary details (input form, comment level, sorting, pagination). No redundant words or filler. It exemplifies concise, high-density content.

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 moderate complexity, readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, input requirements, and key features. It does not discuss error scenarios or edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs), but these are not essential for a read-only, well-parameterized tool with an output schema.

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 detailed parameter descriptions, including nested details for page_token handling. The description merely restates that sorting and pagination are supported without adding new meaning. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra 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 explicitly states it fetches first-level comments for a single note based on note link, short link, or share text. It names the exact resource and action, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like xhs_get_note_comments_by_note_id by specifying URL-based input. The inclusion of sorting and pagination further clarifies its function.

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 on when to use the tool: when you have a note URL, short link, or share text. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the ID-based alternative, but the input format guidance implicitly signals the appropriate use case, making it clear without 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 value by specifying that the returned note_url must be preserved exactly as-is, including query parameters, and not reassembled. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, data freshness, or authentication requirements.

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 paragraph of about 80 Chinese characters, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the subsequent ones provide critical usage rules. 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 tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical output handling rule. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the scope of returned data (e.g., 'includes author, content, images, etc.'), but the output schema presumably handles that. The description is sufficient 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter note_id, with detailed instructions on how to preserve the ID. The tool description does not add any further semantics for the input parameter; it focuses on the output URL. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full parameter documentation.

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 the tool '获取单篇小红书笔记详情' (gets details of a single Xiaohongshu note) by note_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'xhs_get_note_detail_by_note_url' which uses a URL instead of an ID. The additional constraints on note_url handling further clarify the purpose.

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 note_id is available, and provides explicit post-usage guidelines about handling the returned note_url. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to its sibling 'xhs_get_note_detail_by_note_url' or advise when to choose one over the other. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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 critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it mandates that the returned note_url must be preserved as-is including xsec_token, warns against re-synthesizing a public link from note_id, and indicates that note_url may be null. This supplements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by clarifying output handling requirements.

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 very concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It wastes no words but combines purpose and behavioral instructions in a dense block; slight improvement could separate guidance into sections. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 a single parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the parameter format, purpose, and critical output handling. Missing details like error behavior (e.g., invalid URL) are plausible gaps, but the context signals already provide high baseline.

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 repeats the supported URL types already present in the schema's parameter description. It adds no new semantic meaning for the parameter itself, although it does add contextual instructions on using the output. Parameter semantics are adequately covered by 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 states a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('单篇小红书笔记详情' - single Xiaohongshu note detail) and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the input as a URL/link or share text, contrasting with tools like xhs_get_note_detail_by_note_id which use a note 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 note URL is available but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the note ID version. It includes strong guidelines on handling the result (preserve URL, do not reconstruct) but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a read-only open-world operation. The description adds the pagination behavior via page_token and the constraint that it operates on a specific note_id and comment_id, which is valuable extra context. No contradiction exists.

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, focused sentence that succinctly states the tool's function and pagination support. Every word is necessary, and the purpose is front-loaded. 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?

For a read-only paginated fetch tool with detailed parameter descriptions (100% schema coverage) and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It does not explicitly list the return format, but the output schema handles that. Pagination specifics are partially covered by the schema; the description adds the relationship to first-level comments. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's 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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the exact copy requirement for note_id and the opaque nature of page_token. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond confirming the purpose of each parameter, which is already well-documented. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 second-level comments (二级评论) given a note_id and a first-level comment_id (一级评论 comment_id), which distinctly identifies its purpose from the sibling tool xhs_get_note_comments_by_note_id that fetches first-level comments. The action is 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 indicates when this tool is appropriate: when you have a first-level comment's ID and need its replies. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by the requirement of a comment_id, though it does not explicitly state

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds input constraints rather than behavioral details such as rate limits, error behavior, or response characteristics; the output schema covers return structure.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the input source, and the key exclusions. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter read-only detail retrieval tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It specifies the only valid input, the source of that input, and what it does not support, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single sku_id parameter is already described in the schema as coming from product search results and not supporting spu_id, links, or keywords. The tool description largely repeats this, adding no new 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 retrieves Xiaohongshu product details using a sku_id from product search results. It distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding product links, spu_id, and search terms, and by naming the resource type 'product detail' which separates it from sibling note/review/search 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 gives clear context: the sku_id must come from product search results, and it explicitly lists unsupported inputs. It does not name alternative sibling tools for link-based or spu_id-based lookup, but the exclusions are enough to guide correct use in most cases.

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, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: supported filters (sort_type, has_image), pagination via page_token, and the restriction that product links/spu_id/search terms are invalid inputs. There is no contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence. It states the main purpose first, then the supported capabilities, then the unsupported input forms. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent where the sku_id comes from, which optional filters exist, and what inputs are invalid, which is enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter surface (sort_type, has_image, page_token) but does not add meaning beyond the detailed schema descriptions. The important page_token caveats are already fully documented 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 the tool gets Xiaohongshu product reviews using a sku_id from product search results. It explicitly names the resource (商品评价), the required key (sku_id), and differentiates itself by listing unsupported identifiers (product links, spu_id, search terms).

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 explicit when-to-use context: only with a sku_id obtained from product search results. It also states what is not supported, which acts as a clear exclusion rule. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, but the boundary is clear enough.

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 does not contradict these, but it adds no additional behavioral context—e.g., whether the list updates frequently, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the list is unavailable. With annotations covering the key traits (read-only, open world), the lack of further detail is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 in Chinese. It conveys the purpose efficiently without any filler. However, it could be slightly less terse if it included the English equivalent for non-Chinese agents.

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 has no parameters and has an output schema, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose. The output schema presumably defines the structure of the hot list, so the description does not need to explain return values. One might wish for additional context about what 'hot list' means (e.g., trending topics, searches), but the purpose is clear enough.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter details. With no parameters, the baseline is 4—the description is sufficient as there are no parameter semantics to elaborate.

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 the 小红书 search hot list (search hot list for Xiaohongshu). The verb '获取' (get) and resource '搜索热榜' (search hot list) are specific. Among sibling tools that focus on notes, comments, user info, products, and search results, this one uniquely addresses the hot list, providing good differentiation.

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 this should be used when an agent or user wants the current trending/search hot list from Xiaohongshu. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over search functions like xhs_search_notes). No exclusions or context about frequency or user need are given.

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?

有readOnlyHint=true注解，描述只重复了获取行为，未增加额外上下文（如返回格式、限制等）。注解已覆盖安全属性，但描述本身未贡献新信息。

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?

一句话完整表述功能，零冗余，符合简洁要求。

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?

有输出schema，无需说明返回值。但缺少与topic_url变体的区别，且未说明何时用哪个，对于完整性而言略有不足。

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覆盖率100%，参数已有详细描述（尤其page_token）。描述只重复sort_type和page_token的存在，未添加超出schema的语义。

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?

描述明确说明根据page_id获取标签页笔记列表，动词和资源明确。但未与兄弟工具xhs_get_topic_notes_by_topic_url区分，缺少关键差异化信息。

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?

描述未提供任何何时使用此工具、何时使用其他工具（如topic_url版本）的指导，也没有提及前置条件或排除情况。

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 已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 openWorldHint=true，因此 agent 已知这是安全只读操作。描述进一步确认返回笔记列表并支持排序和分页，但没有提供更多行为上下文（如速率限制、结果变化性）。未出现任何与 annotations 矛盾的内容。

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?

描述只有一句话，清晰交代了输入、输出和核心功能（排序和翻页），没有任何冗余内容。信息密度高且结构紧凑，是出色的简洁描述。

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?

工具是只读列表获取，有完整的 schema 覆盖和输出 schema，描述涵盖了所有输入形式和支持的功能。虽然未提及与 xhs_get_topic_notes_by_page_id 的区分，但整体信息量足以让 agent 正确选择并调用此工具，因此略高于基线。

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?

输入 schema 对三个参数都有详尽描述：topic_url 列出所有支持的链接形式，sort_type 有枚举和默认值，page_token 详细说明了分页语义和不可修改性。描述本身没有额外添加参数细节，因此达到 schema 覆盖充分时的基线分 3。

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?

描述以明确动词'获取'和资源'标签页笔记列表'开头，并指出输入是话题页链接、短链接或分享文案。这与兄弟工具 xhs_get_topic_notes_by_page_id 基于 page_id 不同，通过输入类型有效区分了同类工具。

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?

描述说明了典型使用场景（给定话题页 URL），但没有明确说明何时不使用或推荐替代工具（如 page_id 版本）。虽然没有明确的排除信息，但通过工具名和输入描述可以推断使用条件，因此属于隐含用法。

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 (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may vary). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the tool accepts multiple URL formats and share text, and explicitly prohibits note links. No contradictions 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 directly states the tool's purpose and input options. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Could slightly improve by adding a brief usage hint, 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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is fully adequate. It specifies the allowed input formats and what to avoid, while the output schema covers return values. No gaps remain for an agent to use this 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, with a detailed description of the 'profile_url' parameter. The tool description repeats the supported formats but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 identifies the action ('get') and resource ('single Xiaohongshu user info'), and specifies the input type (profile link, short link, or share text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'xhs_get_user_info_by_user_id' (which takes a user ID) and 'xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_profile_url' (which retrieves notes, not user info).

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 when a profile URL is available, and the schema explicitly warns not to pass note links. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool versus 'xhs_get_user_info_by_user_id' or other siblings. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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 description's behavioral burden is lower. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond fetching info. It doesn't mention any rate limits, error cases, or response structure, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage constraints. 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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter, an output schema, and readOnly+openWorld annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention what the output contains (e.g., basic profile info) but the output schema handles 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 coverage is 100% and the description adds significant value by explaining what user_id is not (e.g., not a nickname, not a profile name) and where to source it. This goes beyond the schema's simple type declaration.

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 fetches a single user's info by user_id. It distinguishes from the sibling xhs_get_user_info_by_profile_url, which uses profile_url. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the result is read-only, which is already indicated by annotations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, specifying that user_id should come from previous search results or other endpoints, and that profile_url should be used with the alternative tool. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context of siblings makes it effective.

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 annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds value by confirming the read-only operation (retrieving list) and the pagination mechanism. It also hints at open-world behavior through the 'page_token' description, but does not elaborate on potential errors or rate limits. However, the schema already provides extensive detail on page_token handling, and the annotations cover safety, so the description adequately complements them.

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, and front-loads the primary action and input. It is not wasteful, though it could arguably add a bit more guidance on usage boundaries, but given the schema covers details, this is appropriate.

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 read-only list endpoint with an output schema and rich parameter documentation, the description is sufficient. It states the input types and pagination, and the schema handles parameter values and next_page_token behavior. The output schema is present, so return values are covered. Without explicit mention of error cases or rate limits, it is still adequate given the 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions pagination support and input forms, but does not provide additional semantics for page_token (e.g., how to obtain it, what it represents) beyond what the schema already details, nor does it explain any constraints on profile_url beyond the schema's explanation. Thus, it underdelivers relative to the schema's richness.

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 purpose: retrieving a user's posted notes list from a profile URL, short link, or sharing text, with pagination support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_user_id (which takes a user ID) and other tools for individual notes or comments, by specifying the profile_url input and its accepted forms.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when given a profile link, short link, or share text, and notes that it supports pagination via page_token. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it implies that for user ID-based access, one should use xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_user_id, given the sibling list and the distinct input parameter. The schema also instructs to pass profile links, not note links, which helps clarify usage boundaries.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior, but this is already present in the schema. No extra behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, rate limits, result ordering) is disclosed 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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and pagination capability without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 list tool with a detailed schema and output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for the basic operation. However, it omits guidance on when to use this over the profile_url variant, which is a notable gap given the sibling tool exists. The tool would benefit from stating that this is for user_id-based access, while the profile_url path should be used when only a profile URL is available.

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 detailed descriptions for both user_id and page_token, including usage rules and constraints. The description itself adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 verb (获取/get) and resource (用户已发布笔记列表/user's posted notes list), with a parameter (user_id) that distinguishes it from the sibling tool using profile_url. The pagination support is also mentioned. This is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. the closely related xhs_get_user_posted_notes_by_profile_url, or any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not the contextual choice between 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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: each call may block for up to 240 seconds and does not trigger reprocessing. This helps the agent understand the tool's runtime behavior and side-effect profile.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key constraints (wait time, no reprocessing, no resubmission). Every phrase earns its place.

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 polling tool with a single parameter, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior sufficiently. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that job_id must be the ID returned by the submit tool, not a note_id or link. The description reinforces this but does not add new parameter information 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 task status using the job_id returned by the speech-to-text submission tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling submit tools by focusing on status retrieval rather than submission.

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 explicitly says it is used to continue unfinished tasks, waits up to 240 seconds per call, and warns not to resubmit tasks. It provides clear usage context and exclusions, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, especially the critical rule that note_url must be preserved exactly with xsec_token and never reconstructed from note_id. It also mentions pagination support, which is useful but not exhaustive.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage alternatives and pagination. The second paragraph adds an essential URL-preservation rule. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, pagination behavior, and a critical output-handling constraint. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra semantic constraints beyond the schema, such as prohibiting note links/IDs/user IDs in keyword and requiring page_token to be passed through unmodified and only within the same search context. This meaningfully supplements 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 searches Xiaohongshu notes by keyword, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users with an existing note link/ID to detail tools and those needing comments/replies/transcription to URL/ID 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: '用户需要按搜索词查找笔记时使用'. It also names alternatives for detail retrieval, comments, replies, and speech-to-text, and explains pagination via page_token. This is strong usage guidance with clear 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, indicating read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context about pagination semantics (page_token must be exactly returned, tied to same keyword and caller chain, and cannot be modified). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction, but does not cover other behaviors like rate limits or auth, which decreases from a perfect score.

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 appropriately compact: two main sentences plus a few clauses on page_token. It front-loads the purpose and usage context, then gives pagination constraints. Every sentence adds unique value, with no filler.

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 two-parameter schema with 100% coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, alternatives, pagination behavior, and parameter constraints. It is complete for a search tool with pagination, and the output schema covers return values.

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 detailed descriptions for both keyword and page_token. The description adds significant extra meaning: for keyword, it warns not to pass product links, sku_id, spu_id, or page_token; for page_token, it provides extensive instructions on first request usage, exact echoing, and strict integrity rules (no modification, truncation, etc.). This far exceeds schema facts.

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 searches Xiaohongshu products with a specific verb ('搜索' - search) and resource ('商品' - products). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that when sku_id is available, users should use product detail or review tools instead, and it is differentiated from xhs_search_notes through the product focus.

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 when to use the tool ('用户需要按搜索词查找商品时使用' - use when user needs to search products by keyword). It provides a clear alternative: '已有商品搜索结果中的 sku_id 时使用商品详情或商品评价工具' (when sku_id is available, use product detail or reviews). It also mentions pagination usage with page_token, giving contextual 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the operation is asynchronous, may block up to 240 seconds, and returns a job_id along with a next-step action when incomplete. This goes beyond the schema and makes the flow transparent. It doesn't cover idempotency, auth, or success return details, but the output schema likely handles those.

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, focused sentence that conveys both the core purpose and the async behavior without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and 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?

The description covers the submission, wait window, async fallback, and next action. Combined with the output schema and sibling tools that signal ID/URL distinction and the get_job retriever, the agent has enough context to select and invoke 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?

The single parameter note_id is fully documented in the schema with precise instructions on copying the ID verbatim. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb '提交' (submit) and clearly identifies the resource: '视频笔记口播转文字任务' (video speech-to-text task) based on 'note_id'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_url' by naming the ID-based input.

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 implies the proper condition: when you have a note_id to submit a speech-to-text task, use this tool. It also gives clear post-submission guidance: wait up to 240 seconds, and if incomplete, receive a job_id and follow-up query action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the URL-based sibling or list alternative conditions beyond the identifier.

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 transparency burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature (wait, job_id) but does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure modes, or side effects of submitting a job. It provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 conveys purpose and post-submission steps efficiently. It is front-loaded with the action and input type, though slightly dense due to the timeout and job_id clause. No redundancy or 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential flow: submission, timeout, and fallback to job_id. Does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but for a submission tool this is acceptable. It is complete enough for the tool's purpose.

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% and the schema already describes note_url as '小红书视频笔记链接、短链接或分享文案'. The description repeats this without adding extra semantic detail like format requirements or validation rules, so it adds minimal 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?

Description clearly states the action: submitting a speech-to-text task for a Xiaohongshu video note, and specifies input types (URL, short link, or share text). This distinguishes it from the sibling xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_id, which requires a note 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 indicates the tool is for video notes and mentions post-submission behavior (wait up to 240 seconds, return job_id if incomplete, and next query action). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the by_note_id variant or state when not to use it, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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