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 states the tool fetches a document by ID, which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data vs raw markdown, or handles errors. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the purpose) comes first. This is a model of efficient description writing.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns document content. It doesn't explain what format the fetched document is returned in (raw markdown, structured object, etc.), whether it includes metadata, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return value.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter completely. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'ids returned by the search tool,' which provides context about where the ID should come from. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't add significant semantic clarification.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('a specific Markdownify connector document by id'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves individual documents rather than searching or converting files, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about what distinguishes it from similar retrieval tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use ids returned by the search tool.' This gives a direct prerequisite and indicates it should be used after search operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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