Read a public WeChat article

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the anonymous-first request, the authentication preflight, and the conditional fallback to Cookie-based auth. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and deliverables, the second adds a critical behavioral nuance. Every word 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?

The core functionality and auth behavior are covered, but without an output schema, the description does not describe return-value structure, truncation behavior, or error handling. It is adequate for a read-only tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 'authentication' has a schema description). The description elaborates on the authentication parameter's default behavior, but does not explain max_characters or response_format, leaving them partially ambiguous despite their enums and defaults.

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 action verb ('Extract') and identifies the exact resource ('one public mp.weixin.qq.com/s article URL'), while enumerating the extracted fields (title, account, author, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wechat_official_list_published_articles (listing) and wechat_official_get_article_report (analytics).

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 usage context is implied by the name and description (reading a single article), but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' statement referencing sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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