Fetch Probe Document

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that this is a 'ChatGPT-compatible' and a 'stub,' suggesting a simulated or compatibility-oriented behavior, and that it returns 'full text' for the ID. This provides useful context not present in annotations, with no contradictions.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first provides contextual framing ('stub'), the second the core functionality. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple one-parameter fetch operation with an output schema and clear read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input requirement, and relationship to search. The 'stub' characterization adds a behavioral hint without needing further detail.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with 'Document ID returned by search.' The tool description echoes the same requirement without adding new semantic details, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Retrieves full text for an ID returned by search,' specifying the verb (retrieves), resource (full text), and the relationship to the search tool. This distinguishes it from siblings like search (which finds IDs) and handle tools.

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 description explicitly ties usage to search by requiring an ID returned by search, implying the correct invocation sequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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