查询发布状态

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the description's main added value is the success return shape (article_id plus article link). It hints that non-success outcomes exist but never says what pending/failed looks like or whether results change over time, which matters for a status-check tool.

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 with the lookup key first and the return payload second; nothing is wasted. It could be split into usage and return clauses without growing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does well to state the success return fields, but it omits status values and pending/failure handling, which is the core of a status-check tool. Adequate but with clear 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents publish_id. The description restates the parameter but adds no format, origin, or validity details beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource (查询发布状态) keyed on publish_id, which clearly separates it from the draft/material/publish siblings. It doesn't name the sibling that produces the publish_id (wechat_publish_draft), so the workflow linkage is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to call it, e.g. after wechat_publish_draft returns a publish_id, or whether to poll. The agent must infer the call sequence and any retry/polling behavior from the sibling list alone.

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