yuque_web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: it discloses cookie+ctoken auth, unknown QPS, an explicit warning to avoid concurrent calls, and that results are returned as full document objects. It stops short of describing failure modes (expired cookie) or pagination limits beyond the schema, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and its return behavior before the syntax list, endpoint, and warning. Dense and mixed-language with an embedded raw endpoint and file path, but every element carries information; minor clutter, not waste.

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?

No output schema, but the description states the return shape (full document objects/_record), covers all four parameters, and flags auth and concurrency constraints. Adequate for invoking the tool; only failure/rate-limit specifics are absent.

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 q/type/scope/p including the advanced-syntax examples. The description largely repeats that syntax rather than adding new parameter meaning; 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Cookie-based web search across Yuque docs/books/users') and adds scope detail (full _record objects, no second get_doc call). It is distinguishable from data-fetch siblings like yuque_web_get_doc, but it never contrasts itself with the closest siblings yuque_search and yuque_rag_search, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Gives implied usage context (scope/type filtering, advanced query syntax, requires cookie+ctoken) but never states when to pick this over yuque_search or yuque_rag_search, nor any when-not condition. The prerequisites are present; the routing guidance is not.

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