search_wechat_articles_tencent

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

The description states '结果写入候选账本' (results are written to the candidate ledger), which is a side effect that contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct conflict: the annotation declares the tool read-only, but the description indicates a write operation. Additionally, it mentions prerequisites, cost, and incomplete history, but these are secondary to the contradiction, which warrants a score of 1 and an annotation_contradiction flag.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key constraints and caveats. Every clause adds information (scope, recency, prerequisites, cost, side effect, limitation). No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers critical operational aspects: prerequisites, cost, side effect (writing to ledger), and a limitation (not full history). However, it lacks details on the expected return value, how the candidate ledger is accessed, error handling, or how 'days' behaves when omitted. Without an output schema, the agent has incomplete information to correctly interpret results. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves gaps in operational details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'days' corresponds to '最近N天' (last N days) and implies 'query' is the search term. However, it does not explain the optional nature of 'days', default behavior, or query format. The description adds useful context but leaves gaps about parameter interplay and expectations.

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 performs an official Tencent Cloud WSA search for WeChat articles, with explicit constraints on domain (WeChat public account) and recency (last N days). The phrase '可选' (optional) signals it is an alternative among sibling search tools, and the mention of 'WSA官方搜索' distinguishes it from generic search tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context that this tool is optional and requires the user to pre-enable and configure credentials, and may incur charges. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_wechat_articles or search_wechat_articles_batch, nor does it mention exclusions. It gives enough context to infer it's a specialized path, but lacks direct comparison guidance.

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