read_merged_forward

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that it returns only nested text currently retrievable from the database and explicitly flags whether the record is the complete original. This partial-data warning is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource stated first, then the invocation key, then the return semantics. No filler, though the semicolon-joined second clause bundles key and return behavior together.

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?

Return-value semantics are well covered (nested text plus completeness flag) even without an output schema, and the read-only profile is clear. However, the two optional parameters are undocumented anywhere, so an agent cannot know what max_queries or keyword_hint do.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It identifies session_id + local_id as the lookup key but adds no format details, and leaves max_queries and keyword_hint entirely unexplained in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb+resource: read one WeChat merged-forward chat record. No sibling tool covers merged-forward records, so the resource is inherently distinct, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the messaging siblings (search_messages, get_message_context, read_wechat_post).

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 names the required identity pair (session_id + local_id) but gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when a merged-forward read is preferred over, say, analyze_wechat_chat or get_message_context.

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