fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is an 'OB1-compatible fetch adapter' backed by read_note, which hints at delegation, but says nothing about id validity, failure modes, or whether it re-indexes. 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: identity, input-to-output mapping, backing implementation. Tight and readable.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the only parameter's meaning is explained. What remains missing is error behavior and relationship to sibling resolvers, a minor gap for a single-parameter adapter.

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 0% and the single param has no schema description, so the description must carry the burden. It does so well by defining the parameter as an 'opaque id (from `search`)', telling the agent both the type of value expected and its provenance.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolves') and resource ('opaque id') and gives the exact return shape {id, title, text, url, metadata}. 'Backed by read_note' and 'id (from search)' partially differentiate it from the many sibling retrieval tools, though the distinction is implied rather than spelled out.

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 phrase 'from `search`' implies this tool is used to resolve ids produced by search, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on choosing fetch over read_note, expand, or get_document_bundle.

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