bingcn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (fetch content) without any additional behavioral traits, such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: '根据提供的ID获取对应网页的内容'. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding minimal context, but it earns a high score for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity (a fetch operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely involves network calls or data retrieval, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It mentions '提供的ID' (provided ID) but doesn't explain what 'result_id' represents, its format, or where it comes from. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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: '根据提供的ID获取对应网页的内容' (fetch the content of a webpage based on the provided ID). It specifies the verb '获取' (fetch/get) and the resource '网页的内容' (webpage content), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'bing_search', which likely serves a different purpose (searching vs. fetching by ID), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'bing_search' or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only implied usage is based on having a 'result_id', but this is not explicitly stated as a guideline.

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