cc_fetch_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: shows the page as the model sees it during training, and states that Athena is not used and the request is free. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid coordinates. This is moderate transparency.

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 the primary action, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a few key traits.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, source of coordinates, and cost, but lacks per-parameter explanation and any mention of error cases or limitations beyond the default max_chars. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only collectively refers to parameters as 'coordinates from cc_urls or cc_robots' without explaining warc_filename, offset, length, or max_chars individually. This provides minimal semantic meaning and does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Прочитать текст страницы из WARC-архива' (read page text from WARC archive), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like cc_urls and cc_robots by indicating it consumes their output. It also adds a unique perspective: 'Shows the page as the model sees it during training.'

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 clear usage context: it is meant for fetching text using coordinates from cc_urls or cc_robots, and notes that it does not use Athena and is free. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the prerequisite and cost/backend context are helpful.

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