lovefengis docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value on top by disclosing the return format ('full Markdown'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not describe error behavior for an invalid slug, which keeps it short of 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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the slug provenance immediately after it. 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?

For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers action, input source, and return format. No output schema exists, yet the 'full Markdown' phrasing tells the agent what to expect, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates every valid slug value, so the description does not need to document the parameter. It adds only the provenance of the slug ('from search_docs'), not syntax or format details beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Get the full Markdown of one documentation page') with explicit scope ('one', 'by slug'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming search_docs as the slug source, so an agent can tell the two apart without reading either 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?

The sentence 'Slugs come from search_docs' gives a clear workflow pointer: search first, then fetch by slug. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the dependency on the sibling tool is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (slug, title, URL, excerpt) and relevance ordering (best match first). It stops short of stating result limits or pagination behavior.

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, both earning their place: the first establishes scope, the second establishes output. Purpose and return shape are front-loaded with no filler.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers domain, input nature, returned fields, and ordering — everything needed to call it correctly. Only result-count or pagination limits are left unstated, a minor gap.

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% for the single query parameter, including length bounds and example queries, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes that matching is keyword-based, adding little beyond structured data — baseline 3 applies.

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 (keyword search) and resource (lovefengis developer documentation), and the second sentence pins down what a result looks like. It never names the sibling get_doc, so the agent must infer that search-by-keyword differs from fetch-by-slug rather than being told.

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?

"Keyword search" implies the trigger condition (finding pages when you don't have a slug), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to get_doc as the alternative for retrieving a known page. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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