fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Fetch full content', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description also lacks context on how 'fresh' and 'max_chars' affect the request, leaving behavioral nuances undisclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetch full content') and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without harming conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain the purpose or semantics of 'focus', 'fresh', or 'max_chars', nor does it provide enough workflow context beyond the vague 'post-discovery assist'. The agent would struggle to invoke the tool optimally without additional information.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter meanings. It only explains the 'url' parameter as 'known HTTP(S) URL' and provides no explanation for 'focus', 'fresh', or 'max_chars'. These names are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'focus' is ambiguous and 'fresh' could be misinterpreted, making the description insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'Fetch full content for a known HTTP(S) URL'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'search' (which likely finds URLs) and 'health' (a status check). The parenthetical 'post-discovery assist' adds context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'post-discovery assist' implies the tool is intended for use after a discovery step, suggesting when it might be appropriate, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search'.

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