network_response

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: binary bodies are summarized as a one-line note rather than returned, output is sliced, and calls are blocked after a secret fill. It omits error behavior for unknown/expired request_ids and any permission considerations, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary action and the ID provenance, then the two behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, and the binary/secret-fill caveats cover the main surprises. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the slicing parameters remain underspecified for a paginated read 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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it explains request_id's provenance and implies slice semantics via 'like `read`', but never names `start` or `max_chars`, their units, or that defaults are 0/20000.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: return the response body of a given request_id. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming network_requests as the source of the ID and `read` as the slicing analogue, so an agent can tell it apart from `read`/`network_requests` without opening either schema.

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?

Clear usage context: the request_id must come from `network_requests`, and slicing behaves like `read`. It also gives one explicit when-not condition ('Blocked after a secret fill'), but does not state alternatives or exclusions more broadly (e.g., fetching the body vs. re-fetching via `fetch`).

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