wechat-10w-hot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a read-only lookup of 100k+ read articles filtered by category and date, but it does not disclose result format, result limits, sorting behavior, or handling of invalid date/category values.

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 one short sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly redundant in that '公众号10w+爆文查询' and '获取10w+阅读热门文章' restate the same core idea, but this is minor.

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 3-parameter query tool, the core inputs and selection criteria are documented. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves the agent without a clear picture of the return payload or any usage constraints, so it is only minimally complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description only repeats the 'by category and time' idea already present in the parameter schema and adds no additional format, relationship, or default-value context.

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 action (查询/获取) and resource (公众号10w+爆文/10w+阅读热门文章) and states the key filtering scope: category and time. It is clearly distinguishable from WeChat sibling tools by the '10w+' threshold and category/time focus.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Among many related WeChat tools, the agent is left to infer when this tool should be chosen over tools like wechat-original-hot or wechat-search.

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