tor_fetch_onion

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses operational requirements (Tor daemon, proxy type, URL restriction) but does not cover error handling, timeouts, or return format details. Adequate for a simple fetch but leaves some behavioral traits implied.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states action, second adds constraints and requirements. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main points: what it does, prerequisites, and constraints. Lacks potential details on output format or error behavior but is largely complete for typical use.

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?

Only one parameter 'url' with schema description 'The .onion URL to fetch (http:// or https://)'. Description adds context about the URL format and allowed protocol. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; description provides minor additional value beyond schema.

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 'Fetch raw HTML from a .onion URL via Tor SOCKS5 proxy', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tor_search_onion and tor_scrape_onion by focusing on raw HTML fetching.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (running Tor daemon) and constraints (only .onion URLs, DNS leak prevention via socks5h). It implies when to use (fetching .onion content) and when not (non-.onion URLs). No explicit alternatives mentioned, but context given is sufficient.

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