data_gouv_fr_fetch_source_excerpt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so reasonably well by stating it 'Fetch[es]' a 'short text excerpt', which implies a read-only, benign operation with a bounded return size. However, it could elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid keys.

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 sentences, completely void of fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides essential usage direction. Every word serves a purpose. An exemplary model of concise, front-loaded writing.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, from where, and how to construct the key. The only minor gap is not explaining the max_chars parameter's purpose or default, but that's adequately handled by the schema. The guidance is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions ('Source index, title keyword, or URL fragment' and 'Maximum excerpt length.'). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the source_key format and connecting it to get_sources, but this doesn't go far beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Fetch a short text excerpt from one curated source URL.' This distinguishes it from siblings that search or list datasets/organizations, and the mention of 'curated source URL' plus the reference to get_sources clearly positions it as a focused retrieval tool.

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 gives clear context that source keys originate from get_sources ('...or URL fragment from get_sources'), providing a dependency pointer to a sibling tool. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for exclusions, but the guidance on key construction is actionable for an agent.

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