read_wechat_post

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses source preference (database body first) and a key limitation (external URLs are not fetched). This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of describing fallback behavior or return format.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It loses a point because, with zero schema descriptions, slightly more parameter or usage context would make the compactness better earned.

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 0% schema coverage, the description alone must carry parameter and return-value semantics. It covers data-source behavior well but leaves the meaning of all four parameters and the result shape unstated, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Property names like session_id, local_id, max_queries, and keyword_hint provide partial clues, but nothing explains how they map to selecting or retrieving the post.

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 names a specific action ('read') and a specific resource ('posts, articles, link cards, or long text in WeChat chat'). It also differentiates from network-fetching siblings by explicitly saying it returns database-retrievable body text rather than crawling external pages.

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 gives useful context: it is for stored or database-backed WeChat post content and explicitly says external pages are not auto-fetched. However, it never names alternatives such as fetch_wechat_article or states a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use rule, so routing is mostly implied.

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