french_public_procurement_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 says 'fetch a short text excerpt' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the source_key is not found, whether the excerpt is truncated at word boundaries, or any rate limits or access restrictions. Since there are no annotations, this is a gap.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary purpose. It could benefit from a note about usage, but as a minimal description it is 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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but not sufficient. It doesn't mention what the excerpt looks like, how max_chars is handled, or what errors might occur. For a simple fetch tool it's slightly lacking.

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%; the source_key parameter has a description ('Source index, title keyword, or URL fragment') but max_chars is only defined by its schema (default, min, max). The description adds that source_key can be an index or keyword, which is helpful, but it doesn't clarify how a keyword is matched or what happens with ambiguous matches. It partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific action (fetch excerpt) on a specific resource (curated source) with a parameter selection (by index or title keyword). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for browsing source content rather than searching procurement data. There is no explicit context about prerequisites or use cases.

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