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

No annotations are provided. The description only states that it fetches text, without disclosing behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, whether it follows redirects, or what happens if the URL is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention the dependency on search_pi_docs for the URL, but the schema parameter description includes this. The description is adequate for a straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the fetch action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.

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 text') and the resource ('a PI System documentation page by URL'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_pi_docs' by specifying a different operation (fetching vs searching).

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 after obtaining a URL from search_pi_docs (as noted in the schema for the 'url' parameter), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a search operation with no mention of destructive behavior, but fails to disclose details like authentication, rate limits, or whether results are live or cached. The behavior is adequately described for a read-only search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a simple sibling, the description covers the key aspects: scope, input (query, optional bundle, number of results), and output format. It could mention pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a search 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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('Search') and resource ('AVEVA PI System documentation') with explicit scoping to docs.aveva.com/category/pi-system. It also states the return fields (titles, URLs, excerpts), clearly distinguishing from sibling 'get_page' which likely retrieves a single page.

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 searching PI system docs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling 'get_page' or provide exclusions. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use.

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