fetch_spec_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's capability to fetch both endpoint detail pages and reference data pages, which is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the return format. For a read-only fetch tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 long and front-loaded with the primary action. It conveys everything necessary without any redundant or vague wording. The structure is clean and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the core function, the breadth of pages it can fetch, and a concrete use case. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens for invalid paths or the return format, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward fetch 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 description coverage is 100%; the sole 'path' parameter is well-documented with a type and an example. The description does not add meaningful extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool fetches a Specification page at a given path, using a specific verb (取得する) and resource (ページ). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it can also fetch reference data pages (e.g., holiday categories, market codes) and is intended for traversing links in Markdown, which sets it apart from tools like describe_endpoint.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Markdown内のリンクを辿って追加情報を取得する際に使用してください' (use when following links in Markdown to fetch additional information). It implies a clear scenario but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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