xiaohongshu_get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the source is a '优质库' (premium database), hinting at data quality. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this makes network requests, whether it returns cached vs live data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior. For a read tool with no annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. Every part adds value: the purpose, the '优质库' qualifier, and the parameter semantics. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description is mostly adequate but missing usage guidelines and behavioral details. It identifies the '优质库' data source and explains parameters, but for a tool with no annotations, more behavioral transparency around safety and usage would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that account_id is the Xiaohongshu account number (required) and user_id is optional. The description adds meaning beyond the raw schema by clarifying that account_id is the '小红书号' (Xiaohongshu ID) and marking it as required, and that user_id is optional. However, it doesn't explain the difference between the two parameters or when to provide user_id.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Xiaohongshu account information, with a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('小红书账号信息'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'xiaohongshu_search_users' (search) and 'xiaohongshu_get_work' (get a specific work), though it could more explicitly contrast with the search variant.

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 when to use it: when you need account info and know the account_id. It mentions '优质库' (premium database), suggesting higher quality data source. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it, alternatives like xiaohongshu_search_users if you don't know the account ID, or prerequisites such as needing the correct account_id format.

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