xiaohongshu-search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the tool fetches viral note data by keyword, but does not explain what '爆款' means, how results are sorted, whether date range and pagination affect results, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that front-loads the core purpose: search and viral note data. No wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits useful behavioral and usage context, so it is concise rather than fully helpful.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to give an agent a complete picture. It does not explain return value format, sorting/filtering behavior, how the empty-keyword 'site-wide trending' option works, or any rate or access considerations. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about important runtime behavior.

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 all five parameters. The description adds only the general notion of keyword-based viral note retrieval, which maps to the keyword parameter but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action—searching Xiaohongshu notes by keyword and fetching popular/viral note data. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and purpose, and the '爆款笔记数据' qualifier distinguishes it from generic crawlers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like xiaohongshu-dailytop or xiaohongshu-ai-feed.

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 '根据关键词获取爆款笔记数据' implies this tool is for keyword-driven note search, giving some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar Xiaohongshu search or ranking tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The usage is implied rather than clearly routed.

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