web_fetch

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

Goes beyond annotations by revealing the tool requires a skill grant and rejects direct calls, plus hints at a safety mechanism ('project-safe result'). The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this description adds meaningful behavioral context about prerequisites and access control.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a critical prerequisite. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the core action, the required prior step (run_skill), and the rejection scenario. It does not specify the exact return format, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (url, title, purpose). The tool description itself does not add extra parameter-level information, meeting the baseline for well-documented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public product or research URL'), and clarifies the mechanism ('UGCmind's bounded URL materializer') and outcome ('project-safe result'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling URL-related tools like create_file_by_url.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call run_skill first' and states that direct calls are rejected without an active skill grant/run descriptor. This provides clear context on how to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools for similar use cases.

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