french_associations_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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch a short text excerpt' and gives no information about error handling (e.g., behavior when no match is found), potential side effects (implied read-only but not stated), or any constraints like 'returns first match only'. The description is too sparse for a tool that the agent must invoke safely.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the input scope immediately, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey the return value; 'Fetch a short text excerpt' suffices for the return type but omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what if multiple matches exist, what if no match, or if max_chars is exceeded). It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or limitations of the 'curated source' set. For a simple fetch tool, it's mostly adequate but leaves important details undefined.

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 50%: source_key has a description but max_chars does not. The tool description says 'short text excerpt' which indirectly hints at the role of max_chars, and the 'by index or title keyword' phrasing aligns with source_key. However, it doesn't explicitly explain how max_chars influences the result or provide format details beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not thoroughly.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a short text excerpt from a curated source', with a specific selection method ('by index or title keyword'). It distinguishes itself from siblings which deal with sources, datasets, and searches, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The intent is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_sources, get_dataset). It doesn't state typical scenarios like 'use when you need only a brief snippet' or exclude cases where a full dataset is needed. Usage context is left entirely to the agent's intuition.

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