fetch_juejin_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable usage. The description adds that it makes outbound HTTP requests to juejin.cn API, providing operational context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise: three sentences plus annotation indicators. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides usage guidance efficiently. No extraneous text.

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 description lacks information about the output format (e.g., plain text, HTML, metadata). Given no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns. This omission reduces completeness for a fetch operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, which is described as 'Juejin article URL'. The tool description further associates it with Juejin content but does not add detailed semantics like expected URL format or constraints beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Fetch content from a Juejin article'. It distinguishes it from siblings by specifying Juejin as the source and mentioning free_extract for non-Juejin content.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Best for: Chinese developer articles on Juejin' and 'Not recommended for: Non-Juejin content — use free_extract instead'. Also notes the tool makes outbound HTTP requests, which is relevant for usage considerations.

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