fetchFetch one reviewed PermitReporter guide or one collected permit record returned by search. Permit records retain source, record date, collection timestamp and coverage limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A guide:… or permit:… ID returned by search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that permit records retain source, record date, collection timestamp, and coverage limits. This is meaningful extra information for an agent deciding whether the returned data satisfies a request.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a concise, relevant detail about retained record attributes without bloating the definition.
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 a single required parameter, a complete parameter schema, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for a simple fetch tool. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying the relationship to the sibling get_permit_record, which could matter for correct tool selection.
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 explains that the id is a 'guide:… or permit:… ID returned by search.' The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter; it only reinforces the same origin constraint, 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource: one reviewed PermitReporter guide or one collected permit record, with a specific scope ('returned by search'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_permit_record, since a permit record fetch could overlap with that tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 'returned by search' implies the intended source of IDs and suggests this tool follows a search step. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 tools have overlapping purposes: `search` and `search_permits` both search for permits, differing only in that `search` also covers guidance. Similarly, `fetch` and `get_permit_record` both retrieve records, with unclear boundary between them. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a clear `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_permit_watch`, `get_county_coverage`), but `fetch` and `search` are generic and deviate from that pattern, creating a mixed convention. Still, the names are readable and mostly predictable.
With 8 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range and matches the server's scope of permit search, retrieval, and coverage. It feels slightly heavy due to redundant tools, but not excessive.
The tool surface covers search, retrieval, coverage, and leads, but lacks any management of permit watches (no list, update, or delete). This is a notable gap since `create_permit_watch` exists, leaving an incomplete lifecycle.