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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions internet access capability and markdown extraction, but fails to describe important behavioral traits: rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, timeout behavior, or what happens when max_length is exceeded. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but provides insufficient behavioral context for a tool that interacts with external resources.

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 poorly structured and contains unnecessary information. The first sentence is clear, but the second paragraph about historical internet access limitations is irrelevant to the tool's current functionality and doesn't help the agent use the tool correctly. This wasted space reduces the description's effectiveness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema that performs external network operations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (beyond mentioning markdown extraction), doesn't describe error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The historical internet access paragraph adds no value to the agent's understanding of how to use the tool effectively.

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 the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions 'optionally extracts its contents as markdown' which hints at the 'raw' parameter's purpose, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose: fetching URLs from the internet and optionally extracting contents as markdown. It specifies the verb ('fetches') and resource ('URL from the internet'), though it doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since none exist. The second paragraph adds context about internet access but doesn't enhance the core purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that internet access was previously unavailable but now is, which is historical context rather than usage guidance. There are no explicit instructions about when this tool is appropriate or when other approaches might be better.

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