公众号详情

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method, the unified response envelope, and the relationship between detail fields and list fields, which is useful. It does not mention authentication, error behavior, rate limits, or explicitly guarantee non-destructiveness.

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 compact, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, and then covers request, response, and data semantics in three concise clauses. No filler or redundant prose.

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 simple one-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description gives the response envelope and hints at field completeness relative to the list. It lacks exact detail fields and error handling, which leaves some ambiguity but is adequate for basic invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already explains id as 微信公众号编号. The description repeats the parameter name and required status but adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as 公众号详情 and the operation as GET /open/mp/detail, implying retrieval of official account details by id. It is semantically distinguishable from sibling open_mp_list, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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 usage context is implied: this is a detail endpoint keyed by an id, so it should be used when a specific 公众号's details are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over open_mp_list or provide exclusion criteria.

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