search_xiaohongshu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe what type of content is returned, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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 that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential 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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format results come in, what fields are returned, or any behavioral characteristics. The combination of missing annotations and minimal description creates significant 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not exceptional 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('content on Xiaohongshu'), and includes the search mechanism ('based on a query'). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to demonstrate differentiation from alternatives.

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, prerequisites, or limitations. It merely restates the basic functionality without context about appropriate use cases or constraints.

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