WeChat Article Search

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait — signed URLs are short-lived and must be fetched promptly. It omits rate limiting/anti-bot behavior from Sogou and any language caveat outside the schema, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: purpose first, then the critical ephemeral-URL caveat with the next tool named. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be enumerated, yet the description usefully flags the time-sensitivity that the schema cannot convey. Minor gaps remain around result quality/rate-limit caveats for a scraped source, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (query, page, count) carry their own descriptions with bounds, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 ('Search WeChat Official Account (微信公众号) articles via Sogou'), including the underlying provider, which no sibling offers. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can distinguish it from web_search and image_search without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit follow-up guidance — fetch returned URLs promptly with fetch_page — which is a clear usage sequence. It doesn't state when to prefer web_search instead (e.g., non-WeChat content), so usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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