Get Docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches live content directly from official websites, which signals a read-only network operation and distinguishes it from cached knowledge. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, or that results may vary by version (though the schema covers versioning).

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 first sentence is strong and informative, but the following paragraph includes promotional phrasing ('Solves the core AI-engineer problem') and repeats the 'latest content' idea. The description remains compact, yet some redundancy could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 tool has a rich input schema and an output schema, so return format is handled structurally. The description covers the core purpose and use context, and the schema handles parameters and prerequisites like the list_libraries reference. Only minor operational detail such as error behavior is missing, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 documents all 4 parameters with descriptive help (100% coverage), so the description adds little parameter-level detail. It mentions 'API signatures, parameters, and examples' generically but does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-object pair: 'Fetch real-time, up-to-date documentation from the official docs site of a library.' It clearly identifies the resource (documentation) and source (official docs site), and explains the benefit (latest API signatures, parameters, examples). Though it doesn't explicitly contrast siblings, the function is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling names.

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 a concrete trigger for use: it solves the problem of LLMs having outdated training data by fetching live content. This clearly implies using the tool when current documentation is needed. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is explicit enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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