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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) and the max_chars truncation behavior is in the schema. It doesn't mention potential issues like paywalls, dynamic content, or rate limits, but for a simple fetch tool the description is reasonably transparent.

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?

One short, clear sentence in Vietnamese. It is front-loaded with the main action and output format. No wasted words.

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 is simple with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and output format. It could mention edge cases like non-HTML content or errors, but for a straightforward fetch tool this is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the output format (markdown) but doesn't add much beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Lấy' = fetch/retrieve) and resource ('nội dung đầy đủ của một trang web' = full content of a webpage) and the output format (markdown). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like web_search or search_stats.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need the full content of a webpage as markdown. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like web_search for searching or search_stats for statistics. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not stated.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the tool's purpose (showing provider faults and slowness) but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, side-effect-free, or requires any authentication. It also doesn't describe the output format, though an output schema exists. The behavioral transparency is moderate; it gives context but not explicit guarantees.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage. It could mention what metrics are shown, but the phrase 'provider nào hay lỗi và chậm bao nhiêu' already conveys that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter ('hours') with a description and default. The description references 'N giờ' which aligns with the parameter. No additional semantics are needed; baseline 3.

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 ('xem' – view) and resource (provider performance), and clarifies the time window ('trong N giờ gần nhất'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (web_search, fetch_page) by focusing on statistics rather than search or page fetch.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Dùng khi search trả kết quả kém hoặc chậm' (use when search returns poor or slow results), and states the purpose ('để biết nên đặt API key hay không' – to know whether to set an API key). It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the condition 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a list of results, which is basic behavioral info. It doesn't disclose details like whether results include snippets, URLs, or how results are ordered, but the output schema may cover some of this. The description is honest but minimal.

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 concise sentence in Vietnamese, front-loaded with the main action. It's efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema, so return values are likely covered. The description is adequate for a simple search tool, but it doesn't mention any rate limits, pagination, or result ordering. Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Tìm kiếm trên web' (search the web) and returns a list of results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_page (which fetches a page) and search_stats (which returns statistics), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage for general web searching, and the lang parameter gives context for language preference. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs fetch_page or search_stats, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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