search_wechat_articles_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: cross-query and cross-page deduplication, retained source counts and run records, failure boundaries, and the caveats that results require original-text verification and history may be incomplete. These are non-obvious traits that materially shape how an agent should treat the output.

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 the discovery behavior front-loaded, followed by caveats. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure packs several distinct ideas together, slightly reducing readability.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, safety is covered by annotations and return-value explanation is not needed. However, with six undocumented, all-optional parameters and no usage gating, the definition leaves meaningful gaps about what to pass and when this tool beats its many siblings.

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 6 parameters, and no parameter is required. The description only loosely gestures at query terms and paging ('多个查询词和分页结果') while saying nothing about account_name, start_time/end_time, or the max_pages cap. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: multi-round discovery of WeChat public-account articles, with batch behavior implied by '多个查询词' (multiple query terms). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_wechat_articles or search_wechat_articles_tencent beyond the name-level 'batch' prefix, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The multi-query framing implies a batch scenario, but the agent must infer that this tool is preferred over search_wechat_articles for multi-term coverage rather than being told.

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