fetch_standard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: saves text locally, returns summary/metadata, and immediate return for cached standards. However, it does not mention potential side effects of refresh (overwriting) or any authorization needed.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: action, subsequent steps, caching behavior, refresh option. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (multi-step process, caching), the description is comprehensive. It covers the workflow and restart for already ingested standards. Lacks exact details of returned metadata format, but the sibling tools fill gaps. No output schema, but the description adequately conveys return type.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies 'query' is a standard number with an example, and 'refresh' triggers re-fetch even if summary exists. This helps the agent understand usage intent.

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 the tool fetches and parses an ETSI standard PDF, saves text locally, and returns summary instructions and metadata. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_document_text and save_summary by indicating they are subsequent steps.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for new ingestion or refresh. It outlines the required subsequent steps (call read_document_text, then save_summary) and explains the cached behavior (returns existing summary if already ingested). The refresh parameter is clearly documented.

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