Fetch Document Text

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

Given no annotations, the description transparently discloses the conditional side effect of saving a local markdown copy and updating cache headers. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior, but the core behavioral trait (read with potential write) is clear.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information. No redundant or vague phrasing; it is as concise as possible while conveying conditional behavior.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and partial parameter documentation, the description adequately covers the tool's core function and the conditional side effect. It lacks details on output format and error handling, but for a retrieval tool, the essential information is present.

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 description adds significant meaning to the 'citeKey' parameter by explaining the conditional saving behavior. It also provides context for the 'url' parameter (AustLII). However, it does not elaborate on the 'format' parameter beyond what the schema's enum already provides. With 33% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full text'), targeting legislation or case URLs from a specific domain (AustLII). It also distinguishes additional behavior with citeKey, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like 'get_provision' or 'resolve_citation'.

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 explains when to use the tool with and without citeKey, and the environmental condition ('AUSLAW_FETCH_SOURCES') that controls side effects. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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