List published WeChat articles

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

While annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds a meaningful scoping constraint—'reads the account's own publication history; not an arbitrary third-party account crawler.' This goes beyond annotations by clarifying what the tool cannot do, though it omits pagination and result format details.

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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the scope clarification in the second sentence. No wasted words 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?

For a read-only list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and scope but lacks explicit details about return format, pagination behavior, or search matching semantics. The schema provides parameter defaults, but the description could be more complete about what the returned list contains.

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 only 25% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific explanations for limit, offset, or response_format; it merely paraphrases the 'search' aspect already covered by the schema's query description. This does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool lists or searches articles published by the currently logged-in account, distinguishing it from arbitrary third-party crawling. This specific verb+resource+scope clarifies its role and separates it from siblings like read_article or report tools.

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 operates on the account's own publication history, not third-party accounts, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using wechat_official_read_article for a single article.

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