xiaohongshu-crawler

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the action (crawl by keyword), available filters, and output form (structured table), which is useful. It does not mention rate limits, live-vs-cached data, failure/anti-crawling risks, or pagination/result limits, leaving the safety and operational profile incomplete.

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 compact: purpose, filters, output, and usage triggers are covered in a few sentences with the core action front-loaded. The trigger-word list is somewhat redundant but useful for intent matching.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic selection and invocation context. But it lacks sortType value details, date formats, output fields, and sibling differentiation (especially xiaohongshu-search/xiaohongshu-dailytop), so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is technically 100%, each schema description is just the parameter name. The tool description adds the relation between keyword/date range/sort and the parameters, but it does not specify date format or valid sortType values, so meaningful parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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 identifies the operation ('爬取小红书热门作品数据') and the resource (Xiaohongshu works), plus filter capabilities and table output. It does not explicitly distinguish this from overlapping siblings such as xiaohongshu-search or xiaohongshu-dailytop, so it misses the top level of clarity.

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?

It gives explicit user-intent scenarios ('当用户需要爬取小红书作品、查询小红书热门内容、搜索小红书爆款笔记时使用') and trigger keywords, so an agent knows when to invoke it. However it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative sibling tools.

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