get_doc

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description reveals the multi-source fallback strategy ('Tries Algolia, then llms.txt, then GitHub raw MDX as fallbacks'), which helps the agent understand reliability and performance implications. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise with three tightly focused sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third reveals implementation behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation with fallback behavior) and comprehensive annotations, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the purpose, usage sequencing, and implementation strategy. The main gap is the lack of output information (no output schema), but the description compensates somewhat by indicating it fetches 'full content.'

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'url' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Fetch the full content') and resource ('MetaMask Embedded Wallets documentation page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs (which finds pages) and get_sdk_reference/get_example (which target different content types). It precisely defines what the tool does.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use after search_docs to read the actual doc'), providing clear sequencing guidance. It also distinguishes it from search_docs by indicating this is for reading full content after searching, establishing a clear workflow relationship.

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