fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the MCP HTTP-style contract which provides some context, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when an invalid ID is provided. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence establishes the tool's purpose and context, while the second provides crucial parameter semantics. There is zero wasted text 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 that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what the parameter accepts. However, for a tool with no annotations and only 0% schema description coverage, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about how the tool operates, especially since it mentions an 'MCP HTTP-style contract' without explaining what that entails.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'id', the description provides valuable semantic information by explaining what the 'id' parameter can be: 'a slug, canonical URL, or a post:// style identifier.' This adds meaningful context beyond the basic string type in the schema. However, it doesn't provide examples or format specifications for these identifier types.

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's purpose: 'Fetch a blog post' specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (blog post). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'list_posts' and 'search' by focusing on retrieving a single post rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation in the description text itself.

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 by mentioning the MCP HTTP-style contract and acceptable identifier types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the 'list_posts' or 'search' siblings. No guidance is provided about when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios beyond the basic functionality description.

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