xiaohongshu-weeklytop

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 behavioral disclosure. It only restates the query intent and does not describe output format, how the seven-day window is computed, whether the operation is read-only, or any limits or special behaviors.

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 compact sentence with no filler. There is slight redundancy between '七日爆款笔记' and '七日爆款榜单', but it remains efficient and easy to scan.

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 is sufficient to make a plausible call, but it leaves ambiguity about whether rankDate is the exact list date or the end of a rolling seven-day period. With no output schema, the absence of return-value information also increases the burden on the description.

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 loosely maps to rankDate ('指定日期') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for either parameter.

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/query) and resource (小红书七日爆款榜单), and the '七日' qualifier helps distinguish it from the similar sibling xiaohongshu-dailytop. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xiaohongshu-dailytop or xiaohongshu-ai-feed. The intended use is only implied by the phrase '指定日期', and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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