xiaohongshu_search_users

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states keyword is required and offset for pagination. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, or what 'quality library' implies. The usage of sort_type is entirely undiscussed.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads purpose. Every sentence serves a point: purpose then parameter requirements. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness, preventing a perfect score.

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 3 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description still omits sort_type, lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination limits, authentication), and does not explain the 'quality library' qualifier. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains keyword (required) and offset (pagination), but completely ignores sort_type, which has no enum or description. Thus, only 2 of 3 parameters receive partial explanation.

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 verb ('搜索', search), resource ('小红书博主账号', Xiaohongshu blogger accounts), and a qualifier ('优质库', quality library). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xiaohongshu_search_articles or xiaohongshu_get_account.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xiaohongshu_get_account for known accounts, xiaohongshu_search_articles for articles). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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