decision_card_fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions parsing and schema validation, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose error handling, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states what it does, second describes the result. No fluff or 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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: action and return format. However, it lacks information about error behavior (e.g., invalid URL) and assumes the reader understands 'Decision Card'. Still, it is reasonably complete for a simple fetch tool.

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 only parameter 'url' is a URI string. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely ties to the parameter by stating 'from a URL' but does not specify URL format, accepted schemes, or that the parameter is required (which is in the schema). Minimal added value beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('AI Procurement Decision Card'), and the source ('from a URL'). It also specifies the output ('parsed, schema-validated JSON document'). Among sibling tools, this distinguishes itself by being specific to decision cards and highlighting validation behavior.

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 usage context (fetching a card by URL) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like decision_card_inspect or decision_card_validate. No when-not-to scenarios are mentioned.

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