fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful context that the id is a chunk UUID from search and that full content is returned, but it does not disclose other traits like error behavior or pagination. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 efficiently conveys the action, target, and key parameter context.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (post-search retrieval by id). It could mention edge cases or prerequisites, but the simplicity and structured data make it reasonably 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that the 'id' parameter is a chunk UUID returned by search, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. This is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource ('full content of one search result') and the id's origin ('chunk UUID returned by search'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search and recall.

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 phrase 'returned by search' implies the intended workflow: perform a search first, then use fetch with a result id. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when *not* to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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