local_risk_france_fetch_source_excerpt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. While it is likely harmless, the absence of explicit non-mutating language makes it only moderately transparent.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that clearly state the action and provide a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes no unnecessary details.

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 description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. It explains what to do and how to specify the source. Though no output schema is given, the phrase 'short text excerpt' implies the return type. It does not overly elaborate but covers essential information.

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?

Both parameters are well described in the schema: source_key explains its possible formats ('index, title keyword, or URL fragment'), and max_chars defines its bounds. The tool description reinforces this by specifying that source_key comes from get_sources. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: to fetch a short text excerpt from a curated source URL. It uses the verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource (source URL), making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on excerpts.

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 a specific usage hint: 'Use source_key as a number, title keyword, or URL fragment from get_sources,' which guides the user on how to obtain the required parameter. It implies when to use this tool (when an excerpt is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_sources for full lists.

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