fetch

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the exact return shape { id, title, text, url, metadata } and explains that text contains the record as JSON. It does not cover error behavior for invalid ids, but the read-only nature and output contract are well disclosed.

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?

Two dense sentences carry all essential information: what is fetched, how ids are formed, and what is returned. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-record fetch tool with readOnlyHint and a self-described output contract, the description is complete. It specifies valid id sources, the optional organizationId caveat is handled in the schema, and the response shape is explicitly given despite there being no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the composite id formats and app URL path alternatives, going beyond the schema's brief parameter 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: fetch one full project, board, or item. It also gives concrete id formats and distinguishes it from search by requiring an id returned by search or an app URL path.

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?

It clearly implies the workflow: use search first, then fetch by the returned id. It also explains that an app URL path can be used instead. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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