web_fetch_json

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

The description discloses persistent caching and provenance addition, which are key behaviors. However, with no annotations present, it should also mention read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with action. Could be improved by structuring key behaviors separately, but no wasted words.

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 lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of parsed JSON, error states, cache behavior edge cases). No output schema exists, so description should compensate. Incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no detail beyond the parameter names. The description mentions 'API/JSON URL' but does not explain lang, timeout, or use_cache effects, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 specifies the verb (Fetch), resource (API/JSON URL), and key features (parsed JSON, provenance, cache). It distinguishes from siblings like web_fetch_authenticated by targeting raw JSON APIs.

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 use for JSON APIs with caching but provides no explicit context on when to use vs. alternatives like web_read or web_fetch_authenticated. Missing when-not-to-use guidance.

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