french_energy_open_data_fetch_source_excerpt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only states the operation without any side effects, permissions, error handling, or output format. While 'fetch' implies a read-only action, it does not disclose potential truncation based on max_chars or what happens if the source is not found, leaving the agent with limited transparency.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easily scannable for an agent.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the essential context: what is fetched (excerpt), from where (curated source), and how to select it (by index or title keyword). It does not detail the output structure or edge cases, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable. A perfect score would require a bit more about the return format or error conditions.

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?

The schema covers source_key with a clear description and max_chars with constraints. The description adds little beyond referencing 'index or title keyword' for source_key. max_chars is self-explanatory from its name and constraints, so the parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema, though the description does not enhance them.

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 action (fetch), the resource (a short text excerpt from a curated source), and the method (by index or title keyword). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_sources' (list sources) and 'search_*' (search catalogs), making its purpose 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 implies when to use it: to retrieve a specific excerpt from a known source using a source_key (index/title/URL fragment). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'fetch' and the reference to 'curated source' suggest direct retrieval rather than searching. The lack of explicit when-not guidance keeps it from a perfect score.

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