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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (generates an image and returns a URL), which is more than a bare 'generate' tautology. However, it does not mention whether credit is consumed, whether generation is asynchronous, or whether the URL expires, which are relevant behavioral traits for a generation tool.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action and including the key input and output information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 description explains the return value (image URL), which is important because there is no output schema. However, it omits usage context such as credit costs, possible async behavior, and when to prefer this tool over siblings. Basic information is present, but important context is missing.

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 100%, so both 'text' and 'aspectRatio' are already documented with descriptions and an enum. The description only repeats the text-to-image idea and adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('generate') and resource ('Xiaohongshu-style cover image'), and explicitly mentions the input (text) and output (image URL). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with credits and history.

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. It does not mention the sibling tools, prerequisites, or whether credits are required, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only query ('查询') of the current account's credit balance, which communicates the core behavioral trait of a safe, non-mutating operation. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple balance query this is adequate.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

For a zero-parameter, simple balance query, the description is largely complete: it gives the subject, scope, and action. The only minor gap is the lack of a stated return format or unit, but the tool name and description together are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately references '当前账户' (current account) as the implicit scope, and there are no parameter details left unexplained.

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 specific operation (查询/query) and resource (当前账户的 credit 余额), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is also distinct from its siblings, xhs_generate_cover and xhs_get_history, which clearly have different functions.

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 purpose implies that this tool is used to check credit availability before consuming operations, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. While the siblings are self-evidently different, no explicit routing or contextual guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '获取' and the phrase '历史记录' imply a read-only retrieval with no side effects, and '最近' adds a recency constraint. However, it does not describe the result format, pagination, or ordering behavior.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is concise, front-loaded, and appropriate for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

For a tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. Still, it does not explain what fields a history record contains or how records are ordered, which an agent might need when processing the return value.

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?

The schema fully documents the 'limit' parameter with its description and default, so the description adds little parameter-level value. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb ('获取') and a specific resource ('封面生成历史记录'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings xhs_generate_cover (generation) and xhs_get_credits (credits), but it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 the tool should be used when someone needs recent cover generation history, but it does not state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage context is present, though implicit.

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