doc-fetcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two important behaviors: only allow-listed URLs are accepted, and content is returned as Markdown. However, it does not mention what happens on disallowed hosts, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, which are material for a network-fetching tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action, target, and output format. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 low-to-moderate complexity tool, the description covers the key constraints (allow-listed URLs, Markdown output), and the schema covers parameter defaults and limits. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden. It could still mention error behavior or authentication context, but nothing essential for basic invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetches'), a concrete resource ('allow-listed documentation URLs'), and a clear output ('Markdown-formatted content'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like fs-reader and code-search, which operate on local files and code rather than remote documentation URLs.

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 the tool is for retrieving remote documentation from allow-listed hosts and returning it in Markdown, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as 'not for arbitrary URLs' or 'not for local files.'

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