Get WeChat follower analytics

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it reads 'official exported' data (not real-time computation), enforces a maximum 100-day range, and returns raw source columns. These details go beyond what annotations provide, though pagination and error behavior are not disclosed.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every clause adds value: the source, the scope, the date limit, and the return behavior.

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 description is fairly complete given the absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (5 params, 2 required). It covers the core purpose, the constraint on date range, and the raw nature of the return data. However, it does not clarify pagination behavior or available output formats, which would be more helpful for an agent.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by adding the 'at most 100 days' constraint relevant to begin_date/end_date. However, it does not explain limit, offset, or response_format, which remain undocumented in the schema and description. The enum and constraints for these params are present in the schema, but the description adds limited meaning beyond the date 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource: 'currently logged-in account's official exported follower analytics.' It also adds a key scope ('fixed date range of at most 100 days') and distinguishes from sibling analytics tools by focusing on follower data and noting it returns source columns as supplied by WeChat.

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 implies usage when follower analytics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_article_report. The mention of the 100-day date range constraint is a guideline, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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