search_xiaohongshu_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so excellently. It explicitly states known limitations: no note body, desc field often empty (44%) and why, and links lacking xsec_token causing 404s, plus the caveat that days is effectively non-functional. This is far beyond typical transparency.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into return fields and known limitations. Every sentence adds value, and the known-limitations section is clearly separated for agent consumption.

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 output schema exists and the description covers purpose, return fields, ranking types, parameter caveats, and known data-quality issues, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and set user expectations appropriately.

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 days, limit, and keyword including the days ineffectiveness and cold-keyword caveats. The description adds context about returned data and link limitations, but it does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description opens with '查小红书爆款笔记', a specific verb, resource, and platform, and further specifies ranking categories and returned fields. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_wechat_articles and list_hot_boards by platform and content type.

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?

Provides clear operational context: which rankings are available, what data is returned, and actionable keyword advice (cold words may return nothing, prefer popular track words). It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the platform and content-type focus make the appropriate usage obvious.

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