Get Materio PDF Content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by noting the PDF is downloaded from the CDN and text extracted, and that the returned text may be long. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, args, returns, and examples. The 'IMPORTANT' section adds a bit of extra instruction on how to use the content, which might be unnecessary but doesn't harm clarity.

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 covers the main workflow: how to specify inputs, what is returned (full text, potentially long), and includes examples. It lacks explicit error handling or confirmation of success, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying conditional requirements: 'Required if url is not provided' for semester, subject, topic. It also reinforces that url takes priority, which is already in schema but emphasized.

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: 'Fetch and read the full text content of a Materio PDF.' It specifies the verb (fetch/read), resource (PDF), and distinguishes from siblings like search and get_resource by noting it retrieves actual study material after searching.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after searching/browsing to retrieve the actual study material,' providing context. It also explains the two input methods (direct URL or semester+subject+topic) and that URL takes priority. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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