Fetch one exact result id returned by this public-network search. SAGE rechecks the indexed retailer evidence before returning its source, URL, price, freshness, availability evidence, and limits. Read-only; never use an id not returned by search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Opaque result id returned by the SAGE search tool. |
| 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 and destructiveHint. Description adds that SAGE rechecks evidence before returning, listing specific data fields. No contradictions. Adds value 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?
Two short sentences front-loading the purpose and key constraints. No extraneous information.
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?
With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains behavior, usage context, and constraints. Complete for a single-parameter tool.
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 coverage is 100% and description essentially repeats the schema's description of 'id' parameter. No additional semantics provided beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool fetches one exact result id from a public-network search, listing specific returned data (source, URL, price, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'search' by specifying it uses an id returned by search.
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 says read-only and warns 'never use an id not returned by search', guiding appropriate usage after search. Could explicitly mention alternatives but context makes it 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 two tools, 'search' and 'fetch', have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a list of results based on a query, the other gets details for a specific result ID. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names are single imperative verbs ('search', 'fetch'), which is consistent in style. While not following a standard verb_noun pattern, they are uniform and clear.
With only two tools, the server is very focused. This is appropriate for a specialized search service, though a few more tools (e.g., for filtering or pagination) might improve utility.
Essential operations are covered: querying and fetching details. However, missing features like filtering, sorting, or pagination could limit the agent's ability to handle non-trivial searches effectively.
