detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does clarify that the tool returns specific metadata fields and accepts varying input forms, but it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior for invalid IDs, or potential access 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's core purpose, and the second packs the input format and the return fields into a compact, readable block. No filler or redundant content.

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 tool, this description is largely complete: it specifies accepted inputs and enumerates the returned record components. However, it lacks explicit statement of not-found/error behavior and does not place itself relative to the sibling search/fulltext tools, making it slightly less than fully complete.

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 input schema only defines 'id_or_url' as a string with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly what this parameter accepts: a thesis code, a path like '/id/pl09jx/', or a full URL. This is complete, actionable semantic information.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource ('the full record of a thesis from theses.cz'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools 'search' and 'fulltext'.

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 implies that the tool should be used when you already know the thesis identifier or URL, and it even shows accepted formats. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with 'search' or 'fulltext', nor does it state when not to use it.

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