wechat-top-account

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful non-obvious constraint: daily lists only cover the last 7 days, weekly the last 3 weeks, and monthly the last 3 months. However, it does not say what happens for out-of-range dates, how results are ordered, or what fields the returned account entries contain.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded. The parenthetical packs the three date-limit rules concisely without excessive detail. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 read-only query tool with all optional parameters, the description plus a fully documented schema is mostly sufficient for invocation. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and any description of what fields a 'top account' entry includes (e.g., rank, account name, index score), so an agent may not know what to expect in the response.

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 goes beyond the schema by linking rankType to valid rankDate ranges ('日榜限近7天/周榜限近3周/月榜限近3月'), a cross-parameter constraint that neither the rankType nor rankDate schema descriptions fully encode. This added semantic is genuinely valuable for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('查询'/query), a clear resource ('公众号综合实力账号榜' / WeChat Official Account comprehensive strength ranking), and a scope (top accounts by rank type and date). This makes the tool's purpose intelligible. It does not explicitly name sibling tools it is not, but the '综合实力' (comprehensive strength) framing distinguishes it from other WeChat ranking tools like wechat-10w-hot or wechat-fastest-growing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many WeChat-related siblings. The description implies it is for comprehensive-strength rankings, but it never states exclusions like 'for fastest-growing accounts use wechat-fastest-growing' or 'for trending articles use wechat-10w-hot'. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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