xiaohongshu-note-analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does convey a read-only query behavior and useful constraints like the 30-day window and niche scope, but it does not disclose what the response contains—such as whether it returns note lists, scores, or comparison data—or any other behavioral details.

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 and front-loads the main purpose in one sentence. The opening phrase '小红书笔记优化助手数据查询' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the rest of the sentence earns its place by specifying query scope and intended use.

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 simple query tool with two params, the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema or annotations to make up for the lack of return-value detail. It explains why to use the tool but not what shape the result takes, which leaves moderate ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies the task.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both keyword and startDate clearly. The description adds context around 'same niche' and 'recent 30-day viral notes,' but it largely echoes what the schema already states rather than adding substantial new parameter meaning.

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 query action: by keyword, retrieve viral Xiaohongshu notes from the same niche in the last 30 days. It also names the intended use—copy scoring comparison—which separates it from generic search tools like xiaohongshu-search or xiaohongshu-crawler.

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 phrase '用于文案评分对比' gives clear context for when an agent should choose this tool, and '同赛道近30天爆款笔记' defines the relevant scope. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for other note-related analysis tasks.

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