uc_fetch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a host allowlist limited to unknowncheats.me, a refusal of account and posting endpoints, and an anti-redirect guarantee. These are precisely the failure modes an agent needs to anticipate before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the fallback trigger, then constraints, then args – a natural decision order with no filler sentences. Every clause earns its place, including the redirect note.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the description covers the remaining unknowns: when to use it, what it refuses, and what both inputs mean. Nothing required to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does define both parameters: path as a /forum/ path or full unknowncheats.me URL, and chars as an output budget. It stops short of stating the error behavior for a malformed path or the unit/token basis of the chars budget, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (any UnknownCheats page, returned as cleaned text), and immediately frames itself as a fallback rather than a primary path. That framing is enough to separate it from the structured siblings uc_thread, uc_forum, and uc_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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a structured tool returns nothing parsable') and an explicit scope extension ('a page the other tools do not model – member profiles, wiki pages'), which tells the agent both when to prefer siblings and when this tool is the only option.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.