read_wechat_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description does extra work by explaining what is returned: title, author, and Markdown body. It also discloses that content is capped at up to 20,000 characters by default, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover error cases or restrictions such as inaccessible or deleted articles.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and the truncation default. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, invocation context, return fields, and default truncation. It does not mention the multi-article sibling or failure modes, but those are not strictly required for correct invocation. It is nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the mp.weixin.qq.com URL constraint and the 20,000-character default but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read a WeChat Official Account article and return its title, author, and Markdown body. It clearly establishes the tool as a single-article reader. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_multiple_wechat_articles tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: use whenever the user shares a mp.weixin.qq.com URL or asks to summarize/read a WeChat article. That covers the primary invocation context well. It does not mention when to use the multi-article sibling instead, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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