queryDocs

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.