fetchFetch the full text of a regulatory document page returned by search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A result id from `search`, format "<source-file>#p<page>" (e.g. "REG_2024_1781_ESPR_EN.pdf#p39"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it retrieves full text, but does not disclose error handling, pagination, or other behavioral details. With annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and effective.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the action, resource, and id source, giving the agent everything needed to call it correctly.
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 id parameter is thoroughly documented with format examples. The main description's mention of 'returned by search' adds little beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is warranted.
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 fetches the full text of a regulatory document page, with a specific verb and resource. It also indicates the page comes from a search result, distinguishing it from sibling tools like document_outline that serve a different purpose.
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 description implies the tool should be used after `search` to retrieve full text for a page identified by a result id. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, which would warrant a 5.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: semantic answering, browsable search, exact-string lookup, outline navigation, full-page fetch, about, and feedback. The main ambiguity is between `search` and `search_eu_textile_regulations`, but their descriptions do separate result-list browsing from cited passage answers.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: `fetch` and `search` are one-word verbs, `document_outline` is a noun compound, `about_reecopedia` begins with a preposition, and the rest use verb_object naming. The inconsistency is readable but not predictable enough to infer tool behavior from names alone.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a specialized regulatory-corpus reader: Q&A, browse, exact search, outline, fetch, about, and feedback each earn their place. There is no redundancy or bloated surface.
The toolset covers the full retrieval lifecycle: ask a regulatory question, browse results, find exact strings, inspect document structure, fetch full pages, and report bad answers for curation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent for the stated domain.