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 implies a read operation ('fetch'), but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full contents' entails (e.g., format, size limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with documents.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.

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 complexity (simple fetch operation), 1 parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context about behavior and parameters to be fully complete.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., a document identifier from search results) or its format, failing to compensate for the low 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 states the tool 'fetches the full contents of a search result document,' which provides a clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('search result document'), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'search result document' and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'read_content' or 'read_note.' It avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'fetch.'

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_content' or 'read_note,' nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating when it's appropriate.

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