fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the response is the document's full text; it says nothing about behavior for unknown/foreign ids or size limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and return payload, with examples folded in parenthetically. No wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (full text of one document), and the annotation set covers the safety semantics for a single-param read tool. Adequate for such a simple signature.

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% and the lone `id` param is untyped beyond string, so the description carries the burden and does so well by giving the id's source (search results) and three concrete format examples with namespace prefixes. It stops short of a general format rule for other prefixes.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus a precisely scoped resource: the full text of exactly one document, keyed by id. The examples of id prefixes ('principle:P08', 'note:MHJ-EV-00412', 'checklist:launch') distinguish it from the specialized getters (get_principle, get_checklist) that clearly do not take ids.

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?

States the prerequisite workflow explicitly: the id must come from `search`, naming a concrete sibling tool as the entry point. It does not spell out when to prefer a specific getter (get_principle/get_checklist) over fetch, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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