xiaohongshu-title-score

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only query operation and scopes it to the last 30 days and same track, and the phrase '数据用于评分' clarifies that the tool returns reference data rather than a score itself. However, it does not disclose the output format or limitations, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose ('评分参考') is front-loaded, followed by the query scope and parameters. While compact, a slightly more structured breakdown (purpose, scope, output) could improve scannability, but the current form is appropriately concise.

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 two-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the query intent and parameter role, but with no output schema it leaves the return value ambiguous: it says 'data for scoring' but does not specify whether the output is a list of titles, metrics, or an actual score. This ambiguity is notable given the tool name is 'title-score', so the description is adequate but incomplete.

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%, and the description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the 'same track' and '30 days' constraints, but these are already stated in the parameter descriptions, so the description adds no semantic value beyond them.

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 verb ('查询' - query) and a clear resource ('同赛道近30天爆款标题数据' - same-track viral title data from the last 30 days), and frames the tool as a scoring reference ('小红书标题评分参考'). It is distinguishable from generation tools like xiaohongshu-write and search tools like xiaohongshu-search by emphasizing the scoring purpose, though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling.

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 implies the tool should be used when scoring a Xiaohongshu title and reference viral titles from the same track are needed ('用于评分'). However, it gives no explicit 'when vs when not' guidance and does not name alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and the 'scoring reference' phrase.

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