Get current WeChat Official Account info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail not covered by annotations: the tool does not expose cookies or login tokens. This provides security context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields. It is concise, with no fluff, and every sentence adds value. 'Does not expose cookies or login tokens' is a useful caveat in one short sentence.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (the four listed fields) and a key limitation (no tokens). It does not explain response_format variants, but the schema covers the enum/default. Overall, it is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (response_format) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. However, it never mentions the parameter or its effect on output format. The schema's enum and default provide some meaning, but the description adds no parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Read') and resource (the currently logged-in WeChat Official Account's nickname, original ID, avatar, and account type). It distinguishes this tool from siblings such as article or report tools, which are about different resources.

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 clear context: it is for reading info about the logged-in account. It implies usage when account details are needed, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool. The 'currently logged-in' phrase adds scope clarity.

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