xiaohongshu_search_ai_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that keyword is required, time format, and optional source, but fails to disclose pagination behavior (page_num, page_size), the fact that it searches a curated 'high-quality library', or any read-only guarantee. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 very concise, consisting of one title sentence and three bullet-like statements. It front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds information, though it could be slightly more structured. No wasted words, but additional details would not harm conciseness.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the curation aspect ('优质库'), the output nature, or pagination. While output schema exists, the description lacks context about the search scope and limitations. It leaves the agent guessing about important details.

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 adds meaning for keyword (required), start_time/end_time (format example), and source (optional platform). However, it omits page_num and page_size entirely, and does not elaborate on the semantics of 'source' or the time parameters beyond format. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 searches Xiaohongshu AI creation related notes, specifically a 'high-quality library'. The name and scope differentiate it from sibling tools like xiaohongshu_search_articles (general search) and xiaohongshu_search_users, providing a specific verb (search) and resource (AI notes on Xiaohongshu).

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 usage for AI-themed content by specifying 'AI creation related notes', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like xiaohongshu_search_articles. It provides format requirements for time parameters but lacks guidance on when to use or avoid the tool.

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