rednote_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does declare 'Read only' and describes what comes back (note urls with xsec_token), which is genuinely valuable workflow context. It omits any mention of login/auth requirements (a rednote_login_status sibling exists), rate limits, or result-count behavior, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose leads, and the downstream xsec_token dependency follows immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does address the return payload (note urls carrying xsec_token). However, it says nothing about the limit parameter, result ordering, or pagination, which leaves gaps 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only alludes to 'keyword'. The 'limit' parameter, including its max of 30, is never mentioned or explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search RedNote notes by keyword'), which cleanly separates it from mutation siblings like rednote_create_post and rednote_like_note. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest read sibling, rednote_my_notes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. The clause 'that carry the xsec_token other tools need' implies a required first step before calling rednote_get_note, which is useful but left for the agent to infer.

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