wb_fetch_all

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing automatic cursor/offset/last_id handling, catalog-derived array paths, the max_items hard cap, default 10000, and the exact JSON return shape. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model without any contradiction with the 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, handled styles, parameter semantics, and return shape are organized in a clear, front-loaded structure. No filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains all parameters, defaults, behavioral safeguards, and the response envelope. The agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the output schema covers return field details.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section documents all seven parameters: operation_id is a read endpoint from the catalog, cursor fields are managed, items_path overrides the array path, limit sets page size, and max_items caps output. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb+object: 'Auto-paginate a read endpoint and return every row in one response.' It clearly distinguishes this from one-shot call tools by emphasizing full pagination, and it names the handled pagination styles and the catalog-driven array path so an agent knows what the tool is for.

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 first sentence gives clear context: use this when you want every row from a read endpoint, not just a single page. It does not explicitly name alternatives like wb_call_method or state when not to use it, but the auto-pagination framing makes the primary use case unmistakable.

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