xiaohongshu-title

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says the tool queries title patterns. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, what the returned data looks like, or any limits. The tool's actual behavior beyond the query is largely undisclosed.

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 sentence that packs the core purpose, resource, timeframe, and parameter intent without filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the phrase '生成参考' is slightly imprecise.

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 a simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, it does not explain the return format, the exact output of '标题规律', or any edge cases around date range validation, leaving moderate gaps.

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 two parameters are already documented. The description adds a little context by linking keyword to '同赛道' and startDate to '近30天', but it does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('查询') and resource ('同赛道近30天爆款笔记标题规律'), anchored to a keyword. It identifies what the tool returns—viral title patterns—and is distinguishable from siblings like xiaohongshu-title-score, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need Xiaohongshu viral title patterns by keyword within the last 30 days. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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