wechat-original-hot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate a read-only intent through '查询' and '获取' and specifies the 10w+ article filter, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or any limits, leaving meaningful behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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, short sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the main purpose. There is mild redundancy between '查询' and '获取' and between '爆款' and '10w+', but the second clause does add the key filtering criteria, so the overall structure is acceptable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable high-level understanding but omits return value expectations, sorting, and result limits. The schema covers required parameters adequately, so invocation is possible, but an agent is left with uncertainty about what data will be returned and how it is structured.

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 adds only a general confirmation that results are filtered by category and time; it does not explain parameter purpose beyond what the input schema already states. The type parameter's allowed values remain vague ('等23个标准分类') in both the schema and the description.

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—querying official-account original viral articles—and identifies the resource ('公众号原创爆款文章') plus the filtering dimensions (category and time). However, it does not differentiate this from the similarly named sibling 'wechat-10w-hot', which appears to target the same kind of data, 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?

The description tells what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of sibling tools like 'wechat-10w-hot' or 'wechat-fastest-growing'. There is no mention of trade-offs, exclusions, or conditions that should route an agent to this tool versus alternatives.

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