wechat_search_chat_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the search semantics implied by the name. It does not state that the operation is read-only, that results are limited/sorted, or what permissions are needed. The only behavioral hint (global scope) is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a tool with no annotations and multiple parameters.

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 described, and parameters are covered by the schema. However, with no annotations the description should still convey more (read-only nature, result behavior, relationship to wechat_get_chat_history) than it does.

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 keyword, number, and with_content are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or matching-rule detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (搜索/search), resource (聊天记录/chat history), and scope (全局/global, 用关键字/by keyword). The 'global' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from wechat_get_chat_history, but the sibling is never named 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?

The word '全局' hints at when this is appropriate (cross-conversation lookup) versus a single-chat fetch, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the scope adverb.

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