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.