french_school_map_fetch_source_excerpt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only fetch and that the result is a short text excerpt, but it does not explain behavior for missing keys, ambiguous keyword matches, or how max_chars affects the returned text.

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 communicates the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool.

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 is simple, but the description lacks important context: it does not reference french_school_map_get_sources for discovering valid source keys, does not specify the return format, and does not clarify how max_chars is applied. These gaps are meaningful because there is no output schema and no annotations.

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 already describes source_key as 'Source index, title keyword, or URL fragment,' and the description adds 'index or title keyword' but omits URL fragment. max_chars has no description beyond its name and numeric constraints, so the description adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 lookup method ('by index or title keyword'). It is distinct enough from siblings like french_school_map_get_sources, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as french_school_map_get_sources or french_school_map_search_schools. The description implies it is for retrieving excerpts, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or how to discover valid source keys.

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