Fetch

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by saying the return is the FULL text of exactly one document (as opposed to a summary or a collection) and by enumerating the document shapes. It says nothing about behavior on a missing or malformed id, or about document 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?

A single compact sentence with the core claim ('full text of one ontology document') front-loaded and the document-type enumeration trailing as qualification. No filler, though the parenthetical list is slightly dense for one sentence.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient; the only real omission is routedness versus the closely related get_term and describe_table siblings.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented with a concrete example format ('term:term_ab12'). The description adds no additional semantics about the id beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb (full text retrieval) and a precise resource (one ontology document), and enumerates what a document can be: a Term with its attributes, SQL attributes and relationships, or a table. This differentiates it from search-style siblings, though the generic name 'fetch' does not on its own, and it does not name get_term or describe_table as distinct alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema note that the id is 'returned by search' suggests the search-then-fetch workflow, and 'full text of one document' implies it is for expanding a single result rather than listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_term or describe_table, nor any exclusion or prerequisite stated in the description itself.

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