ddg_fetch_public_resource

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions redaction and size caps, but omits critical behaviors like authentication, rate limits, error handling, or side effects for a mutation-free fetch. Incomplete for a tool with zero annotations.

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?

Single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with action and context. No wasted words; every element adds information (allowlisted, redaction, size caps).

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 only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input format. Mentions redaction/size caps which are implied constraints. Could be improved by noting the output schema existence or providing a usage example, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds value by specifying that the `resource` parameter can be an id or ddg:// URI. This goes beyond the bare schema definition. Still, no constraints or examples are given.

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?

Clearly states the verb (Fetch), resource (allowlisted DDG public manifest/doc), and input format (id or ddg:// URI). Distinguishes from sibling ddg_public_resource_index by specifying retrieval of a single resource by identifier.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ddg_public_resource_index. Does not mention prerequisites or context such as first obtaining a resource ID from index.

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