query_article_history

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: it only returns previously collected local articles, not complete account history, and indicates that biz is preferred over name during filtering. This prevents a likely misuse of the tool.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core filtering action and criteria are front-loaded, and the crucial scope limitation follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Although the primary purpose and key limitation are clear, the tool has five optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not clarify identity_status, time range formatting, or what the returned article objects contain. For a query tool with zero schema descriptions, more context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 explaining parameters. It explains account_biz, account_name, and general time filtering, but omits identity_status entirely and does not specify the format or semantics of start_time/end_time. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent choosing parameters.

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's function: filter locally fetched articles by account biz (prioritized) or name and publish time. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a complete official-account history, which helps disambiguate it from sibling search 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 phrase '仅为已收集历史，不是完整公众号历史' provides a clear when-not-to-use condition: this is not the tool for authoritative or full history. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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