xhs_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return contents (titles, engagement metrics, author info, URLs) but doesn't mention authentication needs, pagination behavior, rate limits, or explicitly state that it is read-only. The search semantics imply non-destructiveness, but the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Search notes on Xiaohongshu'), then efficiently covers return values and use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the core return values (titles, engagement metrics, author info, URLs) and suggesting use cases. It doesn't describe response shape or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool with well-documented parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including enums for sort and note_type. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 it searches notes on Xiaohongshu and lists the returned data types (titles, engagement metrics, author info, URLs), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like xhs_note_detail, xhs_user_profile, or xhs_explore, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear use cases ('market research, trend analysis, and competitor monitoring'), giving context on when to use the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternative tools for different scenarios, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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