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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only CSDN article details URLs are accepted and that it fetches full content, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides the URL restriction and a clear alternative. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is largely complete. It specifies the action, scope, and usage boundary. The only minor gap is not describing the exact return format or error behavior, but this is not critical for a fetch tool.

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 schema only defines url as a uri string, but the description adds critical meaning: the URL must be a CSDN article details URL (blog.csdn.net /article/details/). This is essential for correct invocation and is not conveyed by the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the action (fetch full article content), the target resource (CSDN article URL), and specifies the exact URL pattern (blog.csdn.net /article/details/). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fetchWebContent by name, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage boundary: 'only; for other sites use fetchWebContent'. This tells the agent when to use this tool and which alternative to fall back on, leaving no ambiguity.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the URL scope restriction but doesn't disclose further behavioral details such as response format or potential rate limiting. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the URL restriction and the alternative tool, all in one breath.

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 fetch tool with annotations covering safety, the description is fully adequate. It states the input scope, the output concept (README content), and routes other URLs elsewhere. No output schema is needed for such a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying the url parameter must be a GitHub or Gitee repository URL, which is essential meaning beyond the bare 'url' property name. It could be more precise (e.g., full format https://github.com/owner/repo), but it provides sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch README content from a GitHub/Gitee repository URL'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fetchWebContent by explicitly restricting input to github.com/gitee.com repo URLs, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('github.com or gitee.com repo URLs only') and provides the alternative for other cases ('for other pages use fetchWebContent'). This gives clear routing with no ambiguity.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds extra behavioral context by constraining the accepted URL to Juejin post URLs only, which is useful beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, scope, and primary alternative with zero filler. 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?

For a simple read-only fetch tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema provides all needed context: what tool does, what URLs to pass, and what format options exist. Annotations cover side effects, so nothing essential 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 only 50% (url has no schema description), but the description compensates by specifying the allowed domains and path for the url parameter. The format parameter is already documented in the schema with enum and description, so the description's added value for semantics is solid.

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?

Description clearly states the specific verb/resource: 'Fetch full article content from a Juejin post URL'. It also specifies the exact URL pattern (juejin.cn or article.juejin.cn /post/ only) and names a sibling alternative (fetchWebContent), making it distinguishable from other fetch tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('from a Juejin post URL') and when-not-to-use guidance ('for other sites use fetchWebContent'), directly routing agents to the correct alternative. This is clear and actionable.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only that the target should be public and that Markdown pages/pages are supported, but does not disclose extraction, paging, or failure 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it earns its place. It is concise but so minimal that it leans toward under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and specialized siblings, this one-liner leaves critical invocation details (defaults, extraction behavior, link inclusion, paging) undocumented. The agent lacks enough context to reliably call this tool correctly.

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 only 43%, and the description doesn't compensate: it never explains raw, readability, includeLinks, maxChars, or startIndex behavior. The Markdown mention is the only added parameter-related context, aligning loosely with the format enum.

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+resource ('Fetch content from a public HTTP(S) URL') and signals supported content types ('Markdown files and normal web pages'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the specialized sibling fetch tools (fetchGithubReadme, fetchCsdnArticle, fetchJuejinArticle), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No sentence addresses when to choose this tool over siblings; the specialized fetch tools aren't mentioned, and there are no exclusions or preconditions. The only usage signal is the general 'public HTTP(S) URL' phrase, which is implicit rather than explicit guidance.

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 cover read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are up-to-date, version-pinnable, and obtained without a proxy. It does not describe return format or pagination, but those are minor for a read-only docs lookup tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries useful information: what it does and how to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage workflow, and result expectations. It lacks an explicit return-value shape and edge-case behavior, but the overall picture is adequate.

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%, and the schema already provides examples for libraryId, including version suffixes. The tool description repeats those examples rather than adding new semantic detail for query or limit, so it does not go beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('official docs and code snippets for a Context7 library ID'), with concrete examples. It also distinguishes this tool from web-fetch and search siblings by framing it as 'official documentation lookups' and naming resolveLibraryId as its companion.

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 advises using this tool with resolveLibraryId for official documentation lookups and gives a clear benefit ('direct, reliable, no proxy needed'). It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like search or fetchWebContent, so exclusions are missing, but the context is clear.

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, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds operational context beyond annotations: proxy-independent behavior and reliability relative to web search. These behavioral traits help the agent decide under network 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?

Two tight sentences: the first states purpose with an example, the second gives usage priority and comparison. There is no filler, and the key directives ('PREFERRED', 'FIRST') are front-loaded.

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 simple lookup tool, the description covers when to use it, what it returns (a Context7 library ID with an example format), and how to chain it with queryDocs. With no output schema, the gap around empty results or error behavior is minor but not fully addressed.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description adds a useful output example and implies the query-reranking behavior, but does not materially enhance parameter understanding 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'resolve a library/package name to a Context7 library ID' — and provides a concrete example ('/vercel/next.js'). It clearly differentiates the tool from queryDocs and web search by positioning it as the resolution step before queryDocs.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('when the task needs official library/framework documentation'), in what order ('then queryDocs'), and why it beats alternatives ('more reliable than web search and works without a proxy'). This is direct, actionable selection guidance.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond those: no API key required, server-side auto-routing behavior, proxy dependencies for certain engines, concurrent query merging, and the minResults auto-run mechanism that can burn the search deadline. It does not contradict annotations. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact return format, but the citing instruction covers how to present results.

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 relatively long but every sentence carries meaningful information: purpose, engine guidance, alternative tool routing, and a site operator tip. It is well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and key routing rules before secondary details. Minor redundancy exists ('Omit engines to use server-side auto routing' echoes the schema's default), but overall it's efficient.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and complex routing logic, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers when to use it, engine selection per locale, proxy constraints, concurrency, result thresholds, and even alternative tools. An agent can make correct decisions without further investigation, given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the semantics of searchMode (omit/auto vs request/playwright), gives engine-specific guidance (baidu/sogou for Chinese, bing for English, proxy for overseas), clarifies queries for multi-intent, and warns about minResults trade-offs. This compensates well for the 17% of parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Search the web across multiple engines with no API key required.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming resolveLibraryId + queryDocs as the preferred alternative for official documentation, and it covers the full scope of search behavior.

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, actionable usage guidance: engine selection per query language (Chinese vs English vs overseas), proxy requirements, auto-routing when engines omitted, the site: operator, and multi-intent fan-out via queries. It also states when NOT to use this tool (for official docs, prefer queryDocs). This is comprehensive and clearly routes the agent.

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