search_xhs_hot_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: the search is filtered to image-text notes, results are sorted by likes, and only the first 'normal' note is returned (excluding ads or sponsored content). It also mentions the login dependency. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it will download images, though these are implicitly covered by the schema parameters.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and includes the essential prerequisite in the second sentence. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes meaning.

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 provides a clear overview of the tool's behavior and output (title, body, images), and its prerequisite. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., whether images are URLs or local paths) or how errors are handled. Despite these omissions, the core context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool for a typical search request.

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 describes all four parameters completely (keyword, headless, outputDir, downloadImages) with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how the keyword is used for filtering or the relationship between parameters and the output. It meets the baseline for schema-documented parameters but does not exceed it.

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: it opens Xiaohongshu, searches by a keyword, filters image-text notes, sorts by most likes, and returns the first ordinary note's title, body, and images. The verb and resource are specific and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from generic 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 specifies a critical prerequisite: a valid login state must be prepared by the deployer before calling. It also implies the tool is used for retrieving top-liked image-text notes for a given keyword, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (no siblings exist). This guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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