xhs_get_topic_notes_by_page_id

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 that the call supports sorting and pagination, which is mild behavioral context, but it does not go beyond that with e.g. what happens on invalid page_id, data volume, or the meaning of open-world results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: core action and identifier first, then the two capability notes. Every word earns its place, and there is zero redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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 tool with 3 parameters (1 required), a full output schema covering return values, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. The one meaningful gap is not referencing xhs_get_topic_notes_by_topic_url so the agent can route by identifier type (page_id vs topic_url), though the sibling names largely communicate this.

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 page_token schema description is exceptionally detailed (opaque token, no reuse across page_id/sort, no modification). The tool description merely mentions sort_type and page_token by role, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 states a specific verb + resource: '获取标签页笔记列表' (get tag page notes list) keyed by page_id, plus the two capabilities sort and pagination. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the very close sibling xhs_get_topic_notes_by_topic_url; the distinction is left to the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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 phrase '根据 page_id' implies the tool is for cases where the agent holds a page_id, and the pagination rules are well documented in the page_token schema description. However, the description never explicitly says when not to use it nor names the URL-based alternative, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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