fetch_medical_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the security domain restriction and the educational-only disclaimer, which are important behavioral traits. It also implies a read-only fetch operation and return of parsed content, but could elaborate slightly on error handling or return format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by security and educational caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary padding.

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 parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the fetch-and-parse behavior, domain restrictions, and the non-clinical nature of the content. It could specify the output format, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (URL with domain restriction). The description repeats the same allowed-domain constraint without adding additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but adds nothing beyond the 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 the tool's verb ('Fetch and parse') and resource ('medical article from MedlinePlus or StatPearls'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_medical_info. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 that only URLs from medlineplus.gov and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov are allowed, which acts as an implicit exclusion for other sources. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_medical_info for when to search rather than fetch.

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