Query Documentation

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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the prerequisite to resolve the library ID, a rate limit (max 3 calls per question), and the fact that it retrieves up-to-date docs and code examples. These details go beyond annotation equivalents and help the agent understand the tool's constraints.

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 is well-structured, starting with the tool's core purpose, then proceeding to usage constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose: official status, preferred use cases, prerequisite action, exemption for explicit IDs, and call limit. No redundant phrasing or fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description covers all key operational aspects: official nature, prerequisite resolution, alternatives to avoid, and call limits. Even though there is no output schema, the tool's return type (docs/examples) is implicit, and the description provides sufficient context 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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters—libraryId includes examples and origin ('resolve-library-id' or user query), and query includes specificity guidance, examples, and security warnings. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as the official Context7 documentation query tool with a specific action ('retrieve authoritative docs and examples') and resource ('library documentation'). It distinguishes itself from web_search/web_fetch by stating it should be preferred for library/framework documentation, and references resolve-library-id as the prerequisite tool.

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 explicitly instructs to prefer this tool over web_search/web_fetch for library/framework documentation, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It mandates calling 'Resolve Context7 Library ID' first unless the user supplies a library ID, and imposes a hard limit of no more than 3 calls per question—specific, actionable usage rules.

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