fetch_and_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the combined behavior (returning content, links, and snippets simultaneously) and the optional nature of pattern/links, but it does not mention potential side effects, network failures, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a moderate level of transparency 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what it does, the second gives usage context, and the third clarifies optional parameters. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide a coherent picture. It gives a high-level overview of outputs (content, links, snippets) but does not describe the output structure or how the results are combined. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of return format details leaves some gaps for an agent invoking this 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond that, with only the note to 'omit pattern/links as needed' and the implicit indication that links and search are included by default. This satisfies the baseline but doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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: 'fetch a URL and simultaneously return BOTH the cleaned content AND its links AND any matching search snippets.' It uses a specific verb (fetch) and names the resource (URL) and the combined outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url and search_content by highlighting its one-shot combo nature.

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 explicit usage context: 'Most efficient when you want to understand a page and also navigate/search it.' It implies when to choose this combo over individual sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The instruction 'Omit pattern/links as needed' offers additional practical guidance.

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