list_article_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the data semantics: that 'candidate' is not original-verification and 'verified' only means local verification passed, not full history. This helps the agent interpret results correctly beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and semantic clarifications in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for a list tool. It doesn't specify the return format, fields of returned items, pagination, or sorting behavior. An agent can infer some behavior from the name and schema, but critical details are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (limit and status). It only indirectly clarifies two of the four status enum values ('candidate' and 'verified') but does not explain 'conflicting' or 'unknown', nor the limit parameter. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 the tool reads the WeChat official account candidate ledger ('读取公众号候选账本'), naming the specific resource and action. It adds semantic differentiation by clarifying that 'candidate' and 'verified' have specific meanings, which helps distinguish from other tools like query_article_history, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_article_history, get_saved_article, or update_article_candidate. It does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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