fetchUse this after search to retrieve the complete citation-ready text and metadata for one public CamFeed result. Do not use an arbitrary URL; pass the CamFeed id returned by search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | CamFeed result id returned by search, for example camfeed-62. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the operation is for one public result and yields citation-ready text and metadata. It does not introduce new behavioral details beyond annotations, but the additional context about input rules (using search result id) adds value.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and usage timing; the second provides a critical constraint. 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 1-parameter tool with a schema and output schema, the description covers when to use it, what to pass, and what to expect. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.
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%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'CamFeed result id returned by search, for example camfeed-62.' The description reinforces this by instructing to use the CamFeed id from search, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'the complete citation-ready text and metadata for one public CamFeed result.' It specifies the resource (CamFeed result) and the action (retrieve). It also distinguishes itself by requiring a CamFeed id returned by search, differentiating from arbitrary URL fetches and sibling 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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this after search.' It also provides a clear when-not: 'Do not use an arbitrary URL; pass the CamFeed id returned by search.' This gives direct context and a constraint, fulfilling the when/when-not criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools overlap in purpose: search vs. search_journalism both search but differ in advanced filters; fetch vs. get_item both retrieve by ID but with different output types; featured_work vs. recommended_reading both return curated lists. The descriptions help somewhat but boundaries remain unclear for an agent.
Tool names mix styles: bare verbs (fetch, search), verb_noun (get_item, search_journalism), and descriptive phrases (featured_work, latest_work, recommended_reading, work_by_topic). No consistent pattern across all names.
With 8 tools covering search, retrieval, and curated lists, the count is well-scoped for a specialized journalism archive. Each tool serves a distinct niche, and the number is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The surface covers the major workflows: general search, advanced search, item retrieval, and curated/featured lists. Minor gaps like bulk listing or topic enumeration without search exist but are addressable via search_journalism.