fetch

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the constraint that raw paths/URLs are rejected, which is useful operational context, but does not describe error behavior, auth needs, or output.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler words; every phrase adds value.

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 simple one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main semantics and usage constraints. It lacks output details but is sufficient given the low complexity.

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 has 0% coverage for the 'id' parameter. The description implies id is a search result identifier and not a raw path/URL, adding some meaning, but doesn't specify the format or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates.

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 fetches one exact item returned by search, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_document_section by focusing on search results and explicitly excluding raw paths/URLs.

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?

Provides clear context: use when you have a search result item, and explicitly states what it never accepts (raw paths/URLs). Does not name alternatives explicitly, but the exclusion gives a strong usage signal.

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