SocialDataX 微信视频号 WeChat Channels MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and dynamic nature. The description adds minimal extra context—specifying it applies to the 'current API Key account'—which is useful but not extensive. There is no contradiction, and the description relies largely on the annotation-provided 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, front-loaded with the action verb, and is relatively short. However, it repeats the concept of 'balance' in three forms (积分余额、剩余积分或点数), which is slightly redundant and could be streamlined. Overall, it is efficient and structured well.

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 no parameters and an output schema (which presumably details the response format), the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what is queried (points balance for the current API key) and the annotations cover the read-only and open-world behavior. Nothing critical is missing for a simple balance-checking tool.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters since there are none to describe. No additional semantic value is needed.

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 the specific action (query) and resource (SocialDataX points balance for the current API key), which clearly distinguishes it from the WeChat-focused sibling tools. It is unambiguous but slightly redundant by listing three synonyms for balance (积分余额、剩余积分或点数), which could be condensed. Still, the purpose is clear.

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 tool's purpose is obvious from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions. It is implied that it should be used whenever an agent needs to check the remaining SocialDataX credits, but no proactive routing or context 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?

The description adds a valuable behavioral limitation not present in annotations: '当前不支持翻页' (currently does not support pagination). The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. No contradiction detected.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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?

This is a simple, no-parameter tool with an output schema available. The description covers what it does and a key limitation, and the output schema handles return values. No significant gaps remain.

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 and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No gaps exist.

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 retrieves the WeChat Channels hot list ('获取微信视频号热榜'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wechat_search_videos and wechat_get_video_detail_by_url by being the only one focused on the hot list.

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 retrieving the hot list, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing this as a read-only network access tool. The description adds value by mentioning it returns both article details AND body content ('正文'), which explains the output scope. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases like what happens with invalid or expired links. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that fits within the established field limit. The parameter description is well-structured with delimiters (；-separated: one part in the schema type and another in the example), length indicators, and example separators. It's concise and functional, though the embedded format markers add minor noise.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and clear readOnly annotations, the description is adequately complete. It functions well alongside its siblings, though it could have mentioned what fields appear in the returned article details or specified any expected error behavior for expired links.

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 fully documents the url parameter—the description repeats this same information with an example URL. The description adds marginal context by clarifying accepted input forms (link or share text), though this was already explicit in the schema's type description. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema has full coverage.

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's function: '获取微信公众号文章详情和正文' (get WeChat article details and body content). It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle videos (wechat_get_video_detail_by_url), users (wechat_get_user_info_by_url), and comments (wechat_get_video_comments_by_url) by focusing specifically on MP articles.

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 indicates the accepted input format (URL or share text containing the URL). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling context provides clear differentiation—for video URLs, wechat_get_video_detail_by_url would be used instead. The tool's scope is well-defined and self-contained for article fetching.

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?

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool parses the author from the URL or share text before fetching user info, and that it supports both video and graphic links. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose potential failure modes or rate limits, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose and directly states the input type and outcome. There is zero redundancy or wasted wording; every phrase adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations that declare read-only and open-world behavior, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, how it works (parsing), and the input format. No additional details are required.

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 already provides a comprehensive description of the 'url' parameter (including examples and acceptable formats) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the tool parses the author, which is not needed given the schema's detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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's function: given a WeChat Channels video/post link or shared text, it parses the author and retrieves user information. It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (用户信息), and distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_get_user_info_by_user_id by explicitly mentioning the URL-based approach.

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 context on when to use this tool (when you have a work link or share text), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tools suggest there is a by-user-id variant, but the description does not state to use that when a user ID is available. This is implied but not stated, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context (rate limits, auth, data freshness, or meaning of openWorldHint). It simply restates the purpose without any extra disclosure, so it adds little beyond the annotation.

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 that directly states purpose and usage condition with no filler. Efficient and front-loaded, ideal for a simple 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 1-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description combined with the schema covers essentials. Missing explicit error handling and a direct pointer to the URL-based sibling, but those are inferable from the sibling names and schema guardrails.

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 description for user_id is thorough, covering format, sourcing, and negative conditions. With 100% schema coverage, the tool description needs to add nothing extra, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'get user info' by WeChat Channels user ID. Clearly distinguishes from URL-based sibling (wechat_get_user_info_by_url) and from video-listing tools by explicitly naming the lookup key.

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 says to use directly when the user provided a valid user_id, and the schema description elaborates where to source the ID otherwise and enforces the v2_...@finder format. It provides a clear condition but stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like the URL-based tool.

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?

注释已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 openWorldHint=true，描述额外补充了“解析作者后获取列表”这一重要行为，并说明列表包含视频和图文、支持 page_token 翻页。这些信息超出了注释本身，让代理能预判工具的执行路径。

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?

描述只用了一句话，但完整覆盖了输入形式、处理逻辑、返回内容和分页机制，信息密度高且无冗余。关键行为放在句首，代理可以快速理解工具用途。

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?

在已有 readOnlyHint、openWorldHint、完整参数 schema 和输出 schema 的情况下，描述已足够让代理正确调用。唯一可补充的是明确写出与按用户 ID 查询工具的边界，但这属于优化项而非必需，整体信息已完整。

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?

输入 schema 对 url 和 page_token 的描述覆盖率是 100%，参数语义已由 schema 充分承担。描述中提到的“支持 page_token 翻页”与 schema 内容一致，但并未提供超出 schema 的额外参数细节，因此按基线评 3 分。

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?

描述明确说明了工具的行为：根据视频号作品链接或分享文案解析作者后获取用户发布作品列表，并列出列表内容（含视频和图文）和分页能力。这足以与按用户ID查询等兄弟工具区分开，且没有歧义。

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?

描述清晰给出了适用场景：当提供作品链接或分享文案时可使用该工具，而不是用户ID。不过并没有明确写出“如果有用户ID应使用 wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_id”这类排除性说明，因此缺少显式的替代工具指引。

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the list includes videos and 图文 and that page_token pagination is supported. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not go beyond this baseline behavioral detail.

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 that front-loads the core operation, then adds the usage condition and pagination capability in order of importance. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 tool is simple with 2 parameters and 1 required, the schema fully documents both parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover behavior. The description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool: it specifies what, using which input, when to use it, and that pagination is available.

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%, with detailed constraints for user_id (v2_...@finder) and page_token handling already in the schema. The description only restates that user_id is used directly and page_token is supported, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 verb ('获取' / get), a specific resource ('用户发布作品列表' / user published works list), and the input basis ('微信视频号用户 ID' / WeChat Channels user ID). It also clarifies the list includes videos and 图文, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wechat_get_user_info_by_user_id and the by_url variants.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: '用户已提供合法 user_id 时直接使用' (use directly when a valid user_id is already provided). It also states pagination support. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_url or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement that object_id and object_nonce_id must come from the same video and be passed together, and the rationale for obtaining missing IDs via other tools. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 somewhat long but efficiently packed with actionable guidance. It opens with the core purpose, then provides structured usage scenarios. No filler sentences; every clause contributes to correct tool invocation.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return formats. It covers when to use, how to handle missing inputs, and usage constraints. The pagination mechanism is described in the page_token parameter. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of rate limits or error handling, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions including examples. The description adds workflow-level semantics: emphasizing same-video pairing of object_id and object_nonce_id, insisting comment_id be a top-level comment (not a reply), and detailing page_token reuse across pages. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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's function: retrieving comment replies for a specific video based on object_id, object_nonce_id, and comment_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id (which fetches top-level comments) by focusing on replies, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use directly when full ID combos are provided; call other tools to complete missing IDs when partial info exists; ask user for video location info when absent. It also explicitly warns not to pass a reply's comment_id, preventing a common misuse.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the non-mutating nature and external-world interactions. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds minor context about how to obtain the IDs, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits, error handling, or exactly what happens on invalid IDs. Given annotation coverage, this level is acceptable.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and usage constraints without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main condition (having the IDs) and then provides actionable routing guidance, maintaining good structure despite being compact.

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's simplicity (comment list retrieval with pagination), the description adequately covers the primary scenario and input requirements. Output schema handles return values, and page_token pagination is documented in the schema. The description also addresses how to obtain IDs when not supplied, making it reasonably complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful value by stating that object_id and object_nonce_id must be passed together and unchanged, and by guiding the agent on where to acquire them if not initially provided. This goes beyond bare schema definitions and clarifies the relationship between the two required parameters.

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 operation — fetching the comment list for a given video — and explicitly names the required identifiers (object_id and object_nonce_id). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_comments_by_url (which uses a URL) and wechat_get_video_comment_replies_by_comment_id (which handles replies), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (when object_id and object_nonce_id are already available) and provides fallback sources for obtaining them (from detail or first-level comment results). It also tells the agent to call the detail tool first when only an encrypted_object_id is present, effectively excluding the wrong paths and routing to the correct sibling.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs). Since annotations carry the safety burden and the description does not contradict them, a neutral score is appropriate.

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?

A single, direct sentence states the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 read-only list operation with two parameters, both of which are fully documented in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. An output schema exists for return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The only minor gap is not explicitly noting that the tool is read-only, but that is already in annotations, so the omission is forgiven.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both 'url' and 'page_token'. The description essentially repeats the URL flexibility (link or shared text) already present in the schema, adding little beyond what structured data provides. The page_token field is not mentioned in the description, but the schema fully explains its pagination semantics, so no loss occurs.

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 action (获取评论列表) and the resource (微信视频号视频链接或包含链接的分享文案). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id by specifying the URL-based input, giving agents a precise way to select this tool.

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 specifies the input condition (URL or shared text) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives such as the object-ID-based sibling. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with similar tools, so agents must infer which tool to pick based on input type without clear routing guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the constraint that the ID must be valid and gives its source, but no additional behavior such as failure modes or output shape is disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then gives the input-source rule; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only annotations, a complete output schema, and a single fully documented parameter, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it. The only notable gap is not explicitly routing URL-holders to wechat_get_video_detail_by_url, but the tool name and encrypted_object_id parameter make the distinction inferable.

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% and the schema text essentially repeats the main description ('合法 encrypted_object_id; 用户已提供时原样使用，否则可从 wechat_search_videos 返回项获取'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clear action (获取视频详情) and a specific resource (微信视频号合法 encrypted_object_id), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with the URL-based sibling wechat_get_video_detail_by_url, but the identifier type is unambiguous in both name and description.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use the user-provided ID directly and otherwise obtain it from wechat_search_videos results, which is clear procedural guidance. It does not mention when to prefer the URL-based sibling, so exclusions are missing.

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?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already establish this as a safe, environment-dependent read operation, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds a mild behavioral nuance—it accepts share text and extracts the link—but adds no context on return shape parsing, error cases, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource (WeChat Channels work), then the input forms, then the action. No filler words, and the sentence order matches how an agent would think about invoking it.

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 tool is simple (1 param, output schema present, read-only annotations), and the description covers the input essential. The clear gap is routing context: with siblings like wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_id and wechat_get_video_comments_by_url in the same family, the description does not help the agent decide between them, relying entirely on tool-name intuition.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is already well documented with examples (raw link and share text containing the link). The description essentially restates the schema's parameter documentation rather than adding new meaning, 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 verb and resource: '获取作品详情' (get work detail) for WeChat Channels, and specifies the input form (video/image-text link or share text containing a link). This is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_id; differentiation relies on the tool name's 'by_url' suffix rather than an explicit statement.

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?

Usage context is implied: when the agent has a link or share text and wants work details, this tool applies. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of the natural alternative (wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_id), leaving the agent to infer routing from naming conventions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description adds valuable context: it waits up to 240 seconds per call and does not create new tasks or trigger reprocessing. This aligns with the read-only annotation and adds specifics about the tool's behavior that the agent needs to know, such as the maximum wait time. No contradiction is present.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action (querying status) and then adds the key constraints (240-second wait, no task creation) without any redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of a detailed schema for that parameter, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers what it does, how to get the job_id, and what it doesn't do. The only minor gap is a lack of information about expected response format or failure handling, but since an output schema exists, this is not critical.

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% coverage for the single parameter 'job_id' with a detailed description including instructions and exclusions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: querying the status of a WeChat video speech-to-text task using a job_id. It explicitly distinguishes this from the submit tools by mentioning 'submit 工具返回的 job_id', making the specific resource and action unambiguous. The verb '查询' (query) and the resource '任务状态' are precise, and the sibling comparison is clear.

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 explicit guidance on how to obtain the job_id (user-provided or from submit tools) and what not to pass (encrypted_object_id, object_id, or video links). It also states that no new tasks are created. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this after submitting a job and when polling'), but the context and the mention of submit tools imply the intended usage, so this is clear but could be more explicit.

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?

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds meaningful scope behavior: it currently returns videos but not image-text posts, and supports pagination via page_token. It does not go into rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only search tool 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 dense paragraph front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by usage routing and parameter support. Every clause adds value; no filler or restatement.

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 filtered search tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the trigger condition, the alternative paths, the scope limitation, and the available controls (sort_type, duration_range, page_token pagination). Nothing needed to select and call it correctly 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%, and each parameter has a detailed description, so the tool description only needs to mention that sort_type, duration_range, and page_token are supported. It adds no syntax beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a clear verb and resource: '按搜索词搜索微信视频号视频' (search WeChat Channels videos by keyword). It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting it returns only videos, not image-text posts, and contrasts with detail/comment/speech-text tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('用户需要按搜索词查找视频时使用') and when not to: if a work link or valid encrypted_object_id is already available, use detail/comment or ID-based speech-text tools directly, '均无需先调用搜索'. This gives clear routing versus the many sibling tools.

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?

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds crucial runtime behavior: the wait timeout and the fallback to job_id with a next query step. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of a possible asynchronous response.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then states the key behavioral detail (240‑second wait and job_id handoff). No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 an output schema present and only one required parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how long to wait, and the fallback response. It does not name the exact query tool, but the sibling list provides that context. Minor omission of the success case inside the 240‑second window.

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 already describes the parameter thoroughly (100% coverage), including the source (wechat_search_videos). The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond restating that the task is submitted using that id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb (提交) and resource (视频口播转文字任务) and specifies the key input (encrypted_object_id). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_video_url by the identifier type, so an agent can select correctly.

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 explains the behavioral context (wait up to 240 seconds, return job_id if not finished) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the URL‑based sibling. The usage is implied by the parameter name and the sibling names, but there is no explicit 'use this when you have an encrypted_object_id' guidance.

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?

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it waits up to 240 seconds, returns a job_id if not completed, and instructs the next query action. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the async nature of the task.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, then provides the timeout and job_id fallback. No filler words; every part is informative.

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?

An output schema exists (return values are covered), and the description explains the async submission pattern, timeout, and job_id fallback. It does not explicitly name the next query tool (wechat_get_video_speech_text_job), but the sibling list makes it inferable. This is fairly complete for a submission tool.

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 fully describes the video_url parameter with examples and format details (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('提交' – submit) and resource ('微信视频号视频口播转文字任务' – WeChat video channel speech-to-text task), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_encrypted_object_id' – the name itself hints at the by-URL distinction, but the description doesn't state it clearly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative submission tool by encrypted_object_id, nor any mention of prerequisites. The description only covers the post-submission behavior (wait, job_id), not the selection criteria. Agents must 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.