read_merged_forward

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses a two-phase lookup strategy, that only nested text visible in the current database is returned, and that it explicitly signals whether the record is the complete original — a meaningful completeness caveat.

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?

A single dense sentence with purpose front-loaded and the retrieval strategy following. No wasted filler, though the internal-mechanism detail crowds out parameter explanation.

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 7 undocumented parameters, the description carries substantial burden. It does cover purpose, retrieval strategy, and return semantics (nested text + completeness flag), but leaves the pagination/scan parameters completely opaque, which is a clear gap for a tool with this many controls.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies session_id, local_id, and keyword_hint; the pagination and scan-control parameters (offset, page_size, scan_limit, max_queries) are 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: reading a WeChat merged-forward chat record (读取一条微信合并转发聊天记录). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_message_by_id or read_wechat_post. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the two-phase retrieval strategy (exact session_id + local_id lookup, then keyword variants), which tells the agent the tool handles merged-forward records specifically. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for non-merged messages.

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