xiaohongshu-similar-account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a meaningful disclosure: ⚠️ 严禁任何联网搜索, which tells the agent the tool operates on local/static data and no live web fetch should be attempted. It also discloses the two input modes and the copyable-vs-reference nature of outputs. It omits error behavior and rate limits, but the most operationally relevant trait is disclosed.

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 packs function, inputs, outputs, use-case list, and an important constraint into a dense two-clause sentence with zero filler. The core function is front-loaded and the ⚠️ warning is appended for salience. It is slightly run-on and could be split into separate sentences, but every clause earns its place.

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?

This is an 8-parameter, 0-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, so the prose must carry heavy load. It covers purpose, both input modes, output types, use cases, and the offline constraint. Gaps remain: gmt_create is undefined, the return value structure is unspecified with no output schema to fill the gap, and the minFans/maxFans relationship is unclear. Adequate for routing, incomplete for confident parameter construction.

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 nominally 100%, but every parameter description is a tautology ('level' → 'level', 'redId' → 'redId'), so the schema adds no real meaning. The prose compensates by mapping 账号ID→redId, 赛道→track, 粉丝数→minFans/maxFans, and 账号等级→level, and the two count parameters map to the described output types. However, gmt_create is entirely unexplained, and whether minFans/maxFans form a required range is left ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 匹配 (matching) Xiaohongshu creator benchmark accounts — and specifies both input modes (account ID or track + fan count + level) and outputs (same-tier copyable benchmarks and high-tier references). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like xiaohongshu-account-analyzer, xiaohongshu-top-account, and xiaohongshu-search, which serve different functions.

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 provides four explicit when-to-use scenarios — 小红书账号推荐, KOL对标, 起号参考, 账号投放选择 — giving an agent concrete conditions for selecting this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case list is specific enough to route correctly.

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