fetchReturns one complete canonical public product page or guide by the stable ID or URL returned from search. The URL can be used as the citation source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable document ID or canonical URL 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns a complete canonical page and that URL can be used as citation source, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value.
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 tool with one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and output sufficiently. No gaps.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter. Description reinforces the purpose of the parameter as stable ID or URL returned from search, adding clarity.
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 uses specific verb 'returns' and resource 'complete canonical public product page or guide', and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'search' by indicating it fetches a single item by stable ID or URL.
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?
States it uses ID/URL from search, implying after search, and provides context for citation. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the complementary relationship with search is clear.
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 'search' and 'fetch' have clearly distinct purposes: search for finding documents, fetch for retrieving a specific page. No overlap in functionality.
Both tools use simple, lowercase verb names ('search', 'fetch'), maintaining a consistent and predictable pattern.
With only 2 tools for a knowledge base covering diverse topics like taxi software and operations, the count feels slightly thin but is still reasonable for a focused public knowledge server.
The server lacks a browsing or listing capability, making it difficult for agents to discover available documents without knowing exactly what to search for. Major gaps in coverage.