xiaohongshu-top-account

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool queries an account ranking; it does not explain how influence is measured, what data is returned, whether results are limited, or any other behavior. It is not misleading, but it is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices useful context by staying so short.

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 tool with 3 flat parameters and no output schema, but the description still omits important context: valid values for 'type', what the ranking output looks like, and how this tool relates to sibling ranking tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it with confidence.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema's description for 'type' is vague ('榜单类型') without enumerating valid values. Since the schema mostly carries the load, 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 verb (查询) and resource (小红书头部账号榜) and clarifies that it targets the most influential Xiaohongshu accounts, so an agent can tell it is an account-ranking tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like xiaohongshu-dailytop or xiaohongshu-weeklytop beyond the word '账号'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as xiaohongshu-account-analyzer, xiaohongshu-dailytop, or xiaohongshu-weeklytop. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer use solely from the name.

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