wechat_search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search behavior and sort options but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the keyword is invalid (e.g., returns empty). It also doesn't state whether the tool modifies data or is read-only, though 'search' implies read-only. Given the 0% annotation coverage, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action and resource. The second sentence adds specific parameter options. However, the mix of Chinese and English might cause minor parsing issues for some agents, and the lack of a period after the first sentence could affect 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?

Given that there is an output schema (handling return structure) and the tool is simple (3 params, no nested objects), the description is partially complete. It covers the search target and sort behavior but omits the 'offset' parameter explanation. For a simple search tool, it provides enough to invoke correctly for basic use, but lacks details on pagination and error handling.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds meaning to 'keyword' (stated as required, but no detail on format/length) and 'sort_type' (explicitly lists options: default, newest, hottest). However, 'offset' is completely undocumented, and no additional context is given about pagination or result limits. Despite this gap, the description adds significant value beyond the bare schema for two of the three parameters.

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 verb ('搜索' = search) and resource ('公众号账号' = WeChat official accounts). It also specifies '优质库' (high-quality database), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wechat_search_articles (which searches articles, not accounts). The sibling context includes multiple search tools across platforms, and this description clearly identifies its unique target.

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 implicitly states that 'keyword' is required, which aligns with the input schema. It provides sort_type options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wechat_get_account (which fetches details of a specific account) or wechat_search_articles. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it, such as for searching by user ID or for article content.

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