fetch_content

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that fetching is non-blocking, that content is intelligently trimmed, and that timeout and max_length constrain the operation, but it omits important network-fetch behavior such as error handling, auth requirements, redirects, or content-type limitations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then cleanly structured into Args and Returns. It is appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool, and no sentence is wasted even though the Returns section partially overlaps with the output schema.

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?

The tool is simple, the input parameters are fully documented in the description, and an output schema exists, so the return format need not be fully explained. The main remaining gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, not missing invocation-critical parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It documents all three parameters, marks url as required, gives timeout and max_length ranges beyond the schema, and states defaults for both optional parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch and extract content from a URL. It is naturally distinguishable from the search_* siblings and from fetch_multiple_contents because it operates on a single URL, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate those 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 implied by the purpose: use this when you have a URL and need its extracted content. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to fetch_multiple_contents or the search tools.

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