Fetch Alpaca Doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds useful context about the tool's narrow scope (fetching documentation pages by ID) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling, pagination, or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second gives usage context, and the third clarifies the tool's limitation. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 fetch-by-ID tool with one parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what the ID means, and what it is not for. No critical gaps remain.

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 only defines an 'id' string with no description, so the tool description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'id' is a documentation page ID, which is essential for correct invocation. Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is clearly stated, the description compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Fetch one Alpaca ReadMe documentation page'), the resource ('Alpaca ReadMe documentation page'), and the key parameter ('page ID'). It also differentiates itself from related lookup tools by explicitly stating it is not for API endpoint lookup by method and path.

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 the tool: after search_alpaca_docs returns a relevant page ID, or when a page ID is already known. It also provides a clear exclusion ('not for API endpoint lookup by method and path'), which helps route the agent away from sibling tools like search_alpaca_api_specs or get_alpaca_endpoint_docs.

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