xiaohongshu-cover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the core read-oriented behavior: querying by keyword, a 30-day window, same category, and extracting cover patterns. However, it does not clarify what '封面视觉规律' returns (images, text summaries, statistics) or any limitations or rate limits.

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 dense sentence with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every phrase 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 defines the query scope but leaves ambiguity about the output format and what exactly '封面视觉规律' means. With no output schema to fill that gap, an agent may not know what kind of result to expect.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the keyword and time-window semantics and adds the viral ('爆款') context, but it does not materially extend the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: querying viral notes in the same category over the last 30 days by keyword and obtaining cover visual patterns for design reference. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on '封面' (cover) rather than titles, accounts, or video operations.

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 for cover design reference when a user needs visual patterns from recent viral notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xiaohongshu-title or xiaohongshu-search, and it offers no exclusion conditions.

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