Fetch eclass document

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint already cover the safety profile), the description discloses real operational behavior: download entries return no body, HTTP transport only returns publicly configured /files/<token> URLs, ChatGPT must open those URLs via browsing, and localhost URLs require the operator to set ECLASS_HANDOFF_BASE_URL. This is substantial context an agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

Roughly four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior before the edge cases. Every sentence carries operational information about URL handling, so there is little waste, though it is on the longer side.

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 one-parameter read-only tool that already has an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers the important gaps: what kind of input id is expected, what it will not return, and the transport-dependent URL behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema text ('search 결과의 id') is identical to what the description provides, so no additional meaning is added. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema already documents the parameter.

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: it takes an id from search results and returns the original/detailed document text, and it explicitly labels itself a read-only fetch tool. It differentiates itself from download-oriented siblings by stating that eclass://download/<file_id> items return no file body, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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?

It establishes the usage context (invoke with the id produced by search) and gives a clear exclusion: download items do not yield file content, and file reading must be done by browsing the URL rather than through an MCP tool. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool to use instead in those cases.

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