SocialDataX 微信 WeChat MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a read-only balance query. It adds useful context by tying the balance to the current API Key and pointing to the billing dashboard for recharges. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides an actionable billing link. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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, read-only balance query with an output schema, annotations, and a billing link, the description is fully sufficient. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and 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 Belarusand schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned balance represents.

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 a specific action (query) and resource (current API Key account's SocialDataX points balance), including Chinese and English terms. It is unambiguous and obviously distinct from the YouTube-focused sibling 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?

The description identifies the exact context: querying the balance for the current API Key accounttons. It also provides a relevant follow-up URL for recharging. There are no competing sibling tools for balance checking, so no explicit alternatives are needed.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds nothing beyond that. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, ordering, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's minimal addition is acceptable but not enriching.

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 sentence that is direct and free of fluff. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It covers the core action. Slight gap: it doesn't mention that the page_token is used for continued pagination, but that's already in the schema. Overall, the combination of schema and description is complete enough 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 both parameters (account_id and page_token) are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic detail beyond the schema, such as the meaning of the account_id format or the pagination rule, which are already in the schema. 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 clearly states the verb (获取/get) and the resource (文章列表/article list) with a specific scope (按公众号账号 ID/by account ID). It distinguishes from siblings like wechat_get_mp_account_info_by_account_id which retrieves account info, not 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 implies usage: when you have an account ID and need its articles. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention any exclusions (e.g., if you have a URL, use wechat_get_mp_article_detail_by_url). It provides no context about the pagination flow beyond what the schema explains.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real workflow context beyond that: the returned article_url is reusable with the article detail and comment tools, which tells the agent how to chain calls. It does not mention pagination limits or return shape, but the output schema and page_token description cover those.

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?

Two compact clauses lead with the action and resource, then add the sibling routing and chaining hints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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, the description correctly avoids explaining return values while still flagging the actionable article_url field. Given the simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema and annotations leave no gaps 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% and the account_id description already explains reusing account.account_id with an example, so the description's note about account_id largely restates the schema. It adds no new format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('获取发布的贴图列表' by account ID) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool for regular articles (wechat_get_mp_account_articles_by_account_id). An agent can distinguish this from the article-list and image-post-search tools without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative for ordinary articles explicitly, tells the agent where account_id comes from (detail response's account.account_id), and explains how to continue the workflow using the returned article_url. When-to-use and what-to-use-instead are both stated.

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, output behavior), but it does not contradict the 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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read-only tool, though it lacks the comparative structure seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description provides enough for basic invocation. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not address when to prefer this tool over siblings, leaving an agent to rely on name inference.

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 parameter description already explains semantics with an example format (gh_114e76fd6e5d). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 '根据公众号账号 ID 获取账号资料' clearly specifies the action (获取/get) and resource (账号资料/account info), and the tool name disambiguates it from siblings like wechat_get_mp_account_articles_by_account_id. However, the description itself does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, only the name does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema description mentions using account_id from article details, but that is parameter sourcing, not tool selection context. No exclusions or conditions are provided to help an agent choose this tool over siblings such as wechat_get_mp_account_articles_by_account_id.

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?

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declare the safety and scope profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the notable auto-selection behavior when comment_id is omitted, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination lifetime, token expiry, or result shape (those live only in the schema).

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 sentence front-loads the purpose first and the optional-parameter behavior second, with no filler or repetition.

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 100% schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or token details. It covers purpose plus the one non-obvious routing behavior; only an explicit pointer to the sibling comments tool 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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including pagination and token-expiry rules. The description only restates the comment_id semantics, adding essentially nothing beyond the structured fields; 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 names a specific verb and resource: fetch comment replies for a WeChat Official Account article, given its URL or share text. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling comments tool (replies vs. top-level comments), but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer which one to call.

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 clearly explains the optional comment_id path: pass a top-level comment ID to target a comment, or omit it and the service auto-selects a comment that has replies. That covers parameter choice but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus wechat_get_mp_article_comments_by_url or the video-reply equivalent.

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 safety profile is covered. The description's pagination hint is a useful behavioral trait, but it largely duplicates what the page_token schema field already spells out in more detail (3-day token validity, same-article-only chain), so it adds little beyond structured fields.

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?

Two short clauses separated by a semicolon, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slight redundancy with the schema's page_token documentation keeps it from being maximally tight.

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, return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose and pagination adequately; only the relationship to the comment-replies sibling and result ordering/limits are unaddressed, which are minor gaps.

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 already explains that url accepts a link or share text and how page_token works, including the 3-day expiry. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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: retrieve the comment list for a WeChat Official Account article, keyed by URL or share text containing the URL. This clearly separates it from video-comment siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with wechat_get_mp_article_comment_replies_by_url (replies vs. top-level comments), leaving that distinction to the tool name.

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 second clause gives concrete pagination guidance ('reuse the returned next_page_token when continuing'), which is real usage instruction. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over the sibling replies tool or the URL-vs-object-id comment variants, so selection guidance is only implied.

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 meaningful output-side behavior: prefer content_text for body reading, image_urls for images, content_html preserves original structure, and account.account_id can feed account info/published-list queries — context not derivable from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then output-field guidance, then sibling routing — each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense multi-clause packing, but no filler.

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, so return shape need not be explained, but the description usefully points at the key fields and cross-tool reuse of account.account_id. For a one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only the absence of explicit sibling names keeps it below 5.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that share text containing a link is acceptable. The description restates the 'link or share text' acceptance but adds no format or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving details, body text, and ordered images for a WeChat Official Account article or image-post from a URL. It explicitly narrows scope to '普通文章或贴图' (normal articles or image posts), which distinguishes it from the video, comment, and stats siblings.

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?

Sets a clear precondition — '已有微信公众号文章链接或包含链接的分享文案时' (when you already have the link or share text containing it) — and explicitly routes stats/comments to other tools ('统计或评论请使用对应工具'). It does not name the specific sibling tools, so the routing requires the agent to map to the named siblings itself.

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 a genuinely useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: the tool will parse a share post that merely contains the link, not only a bare URL, which affects how an agent may pass input. It does not mention any limits (e.g., private/deleted articles) or rate constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence that states input and output with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: what it returns conceptually (互动统计) and what input shapes are accepted. The main gap is disambiguation from sibling URL-based article tools, which an agent must resolve by name similarity.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with a concrete example URL. The description restates the same share-text tolerance already documented in the schema, so it adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the structured field. 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 names a specific verb and resource — 获取文章互动统计 — and pins down the input form (article link or share text containing the link). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like wechat_get_mp_article_detail_by_url by targeting 互动统计 rather than article content, though it never states that contrast explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite many closely related siblings (article detail, comments, comment replies). An agent must infer from the phrase 互动统计 alone whether this or get_mp_article_detail_by_url is the right call.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the tool first resolves the author from the URL before listing works, and the result includes both videos and image-text posts, with pagination via page_token. It does not mention auth requirements, cost, or rate limits.

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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the input-acceptance rule, then the output, then pagination. Nothing is wasted, though the run-on construction packs three distinct facts into one clause chain rather than separating them.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the input resolution step and pagination nature. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only the sibling-routing detail 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%; both url and page_token are heavily documented in the schema, including the strict 'pass next_page_token verbatim' rule. The description only restates pagination support and adds no format or constraint detail 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 verb and resource (get the user's published works list) and explains the input mechanism: it resolves the author from a WeChat Channels work URL or share text. It never names the obvious alternative (wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_id), so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name rather than the 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?

Usage is implied by the input: use this when you only have a work link or share text and need the author's post list. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer the by_user_id sibling instead, so the routing decision is left for the agent to infer.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (returns both videos and image-text posts) and notes pagination support, but does not disclose return format, ordering, or result limits. Against annotation-covered safety, a 3 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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and using semicolons to separate the usage condition and pagination note. Efficient, though dense punctuation slightly reduces scannability.

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, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies purpose, a usage hint, content-type scope, and pagination awareness, which is enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters carry exhaustive schema-level documentation (the v2_...@finder constraint and the strict page_token copy rules). The description's mention of page_token pagination adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('获取用户发布作品列表') and clarifies scope ('含视频和图文'). The name makes the distinction from the by_url sibling obvious, but the description itself never names or contrasts with that alternative, so it stops 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?

It gives a conditional hint ('用户已提供合法 user_id 时直接使用'), which implies this is the path to take when a user_id is on hand rather than a URL. However, it names no alternative tool and provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the by_url vs by_user_id routing to inference.

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 safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing ID-provenance behavior and the constraint against passing a reply item's comment_id, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination chain behavior in the prose, keeping it from 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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the following clauses are routing instructions that each carry operational weight rather than filler. It is a dense semicolon-chained sentence, which is slightly harder to scan than fully separated statements but appropriate for the branching logic it encodes.

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 tool that sits at the end of a multi-step ID-resolution chain, the description covers how to source each required ID and when to ask the user, which is the main completeness risk. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the pagination chain is documented in the schema; the only minor gap is no explicit statement of the reply-vs-comment distinction against the sibling comment 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the reply-comment_id caveat and page_token pagination rules. The description largely restates the schema's object_id/object_nonce_id/comment_id semantics rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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 first clause states a specific verb and resource — retrieving comment replies (获取评论回复) — and names the exact identifier combination (object_id, object_nonce_id, 一级评论 comment_id) that scopes it. This implicitly separates it from siblings like wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?

It gives explicit routing rules: use directly when the user supplies a complete valid ID set; when only a work link, encrypted_object_id, or object_id+object_nonce_id is available, call the appropriate tool and backfill from work-detail or first-level-comment results; ask the user when work-location info is missing. It also names a when-not constraint ('不要传回复项的 comment_id'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful acquisition-path context (where the id pair comes from, and the fallback to the detail tool), but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or result shape beyond what the schema/output schema already carry.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and the whole thing is a single semicolon-delimited sentence with no filler. It is dense but efficiently sized for the amount of routing information it carries.

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, output-schema-backed list tool, the definition covers the material gaps: how to obtain the required id pair, the fallback when only an encrypted_object_id is available, and the sibling tool to call first. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 every parameter is documented in the schema itself, including the page_token pagination contract. The description's parameter-related content is largely a restatement of the schema's object_id/object_nonce_id guidance, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — 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 ('获取评论列表' — get comment list) and scopes it to the case where the caller already holds the video's object_id/object_nonce_id pair. The identifier-based scoping implicitly distinguishes it from sibling wechat_get_video_comments_by_url, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 gives clear routing preconditions: use directly if the user supplied a valid id pair, otherwise source the ids from the work-detail or first-level-comment results, and if only an encrypted_object_id exists, call the detail tool first. It does not, however, contrast against wechat_get_video_comments_by_url, so the when-to-use-this-over-that choice is only partly resolved.

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 safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that input may be raw share text rather than a clean link, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination semantics, or result ordering. Adequate but thin against an annotation-backed baseline.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the input forms and the returned resource with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to establish input flexibility and selection context. It handles the former but omits the sibling-routing guidance that would matter most given the crowded comment-tool namespace.

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 the url and page_token parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the share-text example and the exact next_page_token round-trip rule. The description merely restates the url flexibility and adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (评论列表) scoped to a WeChat Channels video URL or share text. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id, which fetches the same resource by a different identifier.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. With ~24 siblings including several near-identical comment tools, the agent is left to infer that this one is selected only when it holds a URL rather than an object_id. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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 read-only nature is covered. The description adds only the requirement that the ID be '合法' (valid), which is a slight behavioral hint, but it provides no further details on side effects or response characteristics. No contradiction with annotations 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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('获取视频详情') and then provides needed sourcing guidance. There is no filler; each clause serves a purpose, making it both 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate: it states the operation, explains how to obtain the required ID, and the output schema handles return values. The only minor shortfall is not routing explicitly to the by-URL sibling, but that is not essential for correct invocation of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the description's parameter note is essentially the same as the schema's. The practical guidance about sourcing the ID from search or author list is repeated from the schema, so no new semantic information is added. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: fetching video details based on a valid encrypted_object_id. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the identifier type ('encrypted_object_id') rather than a URL or user ID, but it does not explicitly name the by-URL sibling 'wechat_get_video_detail_by_url'.

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 gives a concrete usage condition: when the user has already provided the encrypted_object_id, use it directly; otherwise obtain it from wechat_search_videos or the author's video list. This is actionable context, but it stops short of explicitly stating when to use the alternative by-URL tool or other exclusions.

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 mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, so the description's main contribution is the explicit constraint that only numeric object_id is accepted, plus the schema's note to avoid encrypted_object_id or video links. This adds practical behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions or response nuances, but given the annotations cover safety, this 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 extremely concise – two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then states the key constraint. There is no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function and limitation.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the one critical input restriction. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that gap. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention whether the share link is a full URL or relative path.

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 documents the parameter with an example and a caution against passing encrypted IDs or links, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the additional constraint that the object_id must be numeric, which is not present in the schema description. This extra clarity nudges the score above the baseline of 3, though the addition is minor.

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 ('获取分享链接' – get share link) and the resource ('微信视频号作品 object_id' – WeChat Channels work object_id), making the purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_detail_by_object_id or wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id, but the verb 'get share link' is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer its distinct role.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wechat_get_video_detail_by_url or wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id. It only states a constraint ('只接受数值 object_id') but does not explain scenarios or trade-offs. An agent must rely on the tool name and schema alone to decide, which is insufficient for a family of similar video 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 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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses pagination via page_token and that the returned user_id is the handoff key for the profile and posted-videos tools, which helps chain calls. It does not mention rate limits or quota costs, so it stops short of 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 content is front-loaded with the primary purpose and the routing guidance is compactly appended with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense with three distinct ideas (search scope, pagination, downstream tooling) in one block, but 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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is not needed, and the description still covers the essentials: search scope, the pagination parameter's role, what the returned user_id is for, and which sibling to use when the ID is already known. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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%, so both keyword and page_token are already documented in the schema (including the 'leave empty first time, reuse next_page_token with unchanged keyword' rule). The description's mention of page_token pagination adds framing but no syntax or constraints 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 verb and resource (查找微信视频号用户) plus the two supported lookup modes (keyword or 视频号 ID), which immediately separates it from siblings like wechat_search_videos and wechat_search_mp_articles. It also states what is out of scope (微信联系人和公众号), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: when a user_id or 作品链接 is already available, use the user-profile tool instead of this search, and it explicitly excludes contact and official-account search. That is a clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named-alternative statement.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: search-card titles and publish times may differ from article details, and exact values should come from the detail endpoint. It does not need to repeat the annotation-declared read-only/open-world 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives concise routing guidance for alternative tools. Most sentences are useful, though the first sentence partially repeats capabilities already clear from the schema.

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 and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description provides what an agent needs: purpose, misuse constraints, pagination support, and sibling routing. It also includes the important caveat that displayed search-card metadata may not match article detail values.

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 the schema already documents keyword, sort_type, page_token, and publish_time_range in detail, including pagination token continuity and expiry. The description mentions sorting, time filtering, and pagination at a high level but adds no parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: searching WeChat official-account articles by keyword, with sorting, publish-time filtering, and pagination. It also distinguishes the tool from related siblings by telling the agent not to pass article URLs or account IDs, and by routing full-text and account-article use cases elsewhere.

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 gives explicit alternatives: use wechat_get_mp_article_detail_by_url for full text from an article_url, and wechat_get_mp_account_articles_by_account_id for articles from a specific account. It also warns against passing article links or account IDs as search input, which directly prevents 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 cover readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds real data-fidelity context: search cards may contain only a body snippet, and exact title/publish time must be taken from detail. That is a behavioral trait an agent would otherwise get wrong by trusting the card.

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?

Three compact lines: capability first, then the chaining instructions, then the caveat about card fidelity. Every sentence carries new information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the two things an agent needs to act: how to chain to the detail/comments tools and that card snippets are not authoritative. Nothing material is missing for a read-only search 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents sort_type semantics, the 3-day page_token validity, and the keyword constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that 综合/最新/最热 sorting and pagination exist, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it — baseline 3.

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: keyword search over 公众号贴图 (image posts), plus sorting and pagination. It is distinguishable from wechat_search_mp_articles (text articles) and wechat_get_mp_account_image_posts_by_account_id (by account ID) by the keyword/account axis, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear downstream usage: feed article_url to wechat_get_mp_article_detail_by_url for body and images, or to wechat_get_mp_article_comments_by_url for comments. It does not state when to prefer this over wechat_search_mp_articles, so the exclusion case is left implicit.

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 non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational detail: it waits up to 240 seconds and, if incomplete, returns a job_id with a next-step query action. This goes beyond the structured 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 dense sentence conveys the core action, parameter acquisition, and post-submit behavior without excessive verbosity. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only necessary details, though the multiple clauses require attention.

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 submission tool, the description adequately covers how to obtain the parameter, the wait behavior, and the job_id fallback. An output schema is present, and annotations cover side effects, so no critical operational detail is missing. The 'next-step query action' is slightly vague but acceptable.

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% for the single parameter, and the description repeats the schema's explanation without adding new parameter semantics. The waiting and job_id behavior is not parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('视频口播转文字任务') tied to encrypted_object_id, and it is clearly distinguished from the sibling wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_video_url by the id-based parameter. It also explains where to obtain the id if not provided, reinforcing the purpose.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use directly when the user provides the id, otherwise obtain it from wechat_search_videos or author works list. It does not explicitly mention the by_video_url sibling as an alternative, but the context is inferable from the parameter and sibling list.

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.