xiaohongshu-write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: keyword-based lookup of same-track viral notes, implying a read-only query. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, limits, or how date filtering behaves.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. There is slight redundancy between '创作数据支撑' and '供创作参考', but no wasted or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one required parameter and full schema coverage, so the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks return-value detail and does not differentiate itself from similar Xiaohongshu search tools, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only reinforces the role of 'keyword' and adds no extra meaning about how startDate and endDate affect the query.

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 action ('查询') over a concrete resource ('同赛道爆款笔记') and ties it to a clear use case ('供创作参考'). It partially distinguishes itself from generic xiaohongshu-search by emphasizing viral notes in the same niche for writing support, though it does not explicitly contrast with that 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 intended context is clear: an agent should use this when supporting Xiaohongshu note creation by finding relevant viral notes. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is specific enough to guide invocation.

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