fetchUse this when the user wants the full public property or guide document identified by a stable public EPK document ID or a prior search result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable public EPK document ID supplied by the user or returned by search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the document is public and full, which is mildly useful context, but provides no additional behavioral detail such as error behavior, availability, or response characteristics.
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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the usage condition, the resource type, and the identifier source. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no redundant filler.
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 fetch-by-ID tool with one fully documented parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what identifier to pass. Nothing essential is missing.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including its source (user or search) and stability. The description essentially restates this provenance rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action (fetch the full public property or guide document) and identifies the resource by a stable EPK document ID or prior search result. It is clear enough to distinguish from search tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_guide_section or get_property.
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 phrase 'Use this when the user wants the full public property or guide document' gives clear conditions for invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling alternatives to choose, so it stops short of full guidance.
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.
The search tools are clearly separated by scope (combined vs guides-only vs properties-only), and the getters are typed by resource. However, `fetch` overlaps conceptually with `get_property` and `get_guide_section` because it also retrieves full property or guide documents, relying on a different ID type to distinguish itself.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: search/search_guides/search_properties and get_guide_section/get_property. The single bare `fetch` breaks the pattern and uses a synonym for `get`, creating a minor but noticeable inconsistency.
Six tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a public knowledge server covering properties and guides. Each tool serves a distinct query or retrieval need, and none feel redundant or out of place.
The set covers combined and filtered searching plus retrieval for property details, guide sections, and full public documents. For a read-only public knowledge domain, this is a complete lifecycle with no obvious dead ends.