Core: Get fetch policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: read-only, not billed, tenant-scoped to the calling key, auth via METRECEPT_API_KEY (stdio) or Authorization: Bearer (remote HTTP), and a concrete failure mode (401 JSON error on bad/missing key). That is exactly the safety, cost, auth and error context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the settings it returns, then usage, then auth. Every sentence is functional, though the final auth/tenant sentence and the inline parentheticals make it denser than strictly necessary for a no-argument read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers everything else: what it reads, when to call it, when not to, auth mechanics, tenant scoping and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter talk, instead spending its words on scoping and auth.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read the web-fetch compliance policy enforced for this tenant') and enumerates the exact contents: allowed purpose values, robots.txt and PII-redaction settings, Terms/DPA acceptance, per-source and total character caps. It explicitly carves out its boundary against metrecept_call_api, so an agent can distinguish it from fetch_web_pages and call_api without reading either schema.

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?

Gives explicit call-site guidance: invoke before metrecept_fetch_web_pages or a create_chat_completion with fetch_urls, or after a refused fetch to diagnose which rule applied. It also states the negative case — 'Not for third-party APIs: metrecept_call_api uses registered services instead' — naming the alternative tool directly.

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