search_wechat_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the data is an in-house snapshot (not real-time) with typical 1-2 day lag, and lists the returned fields, giving agents a clear expectation of behavior and output context.

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?

Three sentences with clean line breaks, front-loading the core purpose and unique value before supporting details. No filler or redundancy.

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 rich 5-parameter schema and presence of an output schema mean the description doesn't need to restate parameters or return structure. It adds the essential use case, ranking lists, and data freshness caveat. It could have explicitly named sibling tools to strengthen routing, but the context is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning; the schema already documents defaults, ranges, and caveats like '本数据源该参数真实生效' for days.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair: '查公众号爆款文章' (search WeChat viral articles). It also claims to be the only data source with full text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_xiaohongshu_notes.

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?

It states the tool is best for topic benchmarking and writing style analysis, and notes the data is a non-real-time snapshot with 1-2 day lag, implying not to use it for real-time needs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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