fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool enables internet access and can extract markdown, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. It adds some behavioral context but misses key operational traits for a fetch tool.

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 two sentences but includes redundant context about historical internet access limitations that doesn't directly aid tool selection. It's somewhat front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence could be more concise and focused on tool behavior rather than background.

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 fetch tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and internet access context but lacks details on output format, errors, or limitations, which are important given the tool's complexity and lack of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions optional markdown extraction, which loosely relates to the 'raw' parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: fetching a URL from the internet and optionally extracting contents as markdown. It specifies the verb ('fetches') and resource ('URL'), though it doesn't distinguish from siblings since none exist. The mention of internet access context is helpful but slightly dilutes the core purpose.

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 usage context by noting that the tool grants internet access where previously unavailable, suggesting it should be used for up-to-date information retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (none exist) or any exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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