Read a topic

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

With no annotations, 'Fetch' signals a read-only operation and the description discloses the article contents included in the response. However, it does not address edge cases like missing slugs, permission requirements, or how include_sources controls the citation list beyond the schema default.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, the input key, and the expected output contents without redundancy. Every phrase adds information.

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 simple two-parameter read operation, the description adequately specifies the return value ('full Markdown article' plus components), which matters because there is no output schema. It could be more complete by mentioning citation conditionality or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 both slug and include_sources are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable because the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full Markdown article for a topic slug'), and names the returned components: infobox, related topics, and citations. This clearly differentiates it from search/discovery/list siblings and from mutation tools like create_topic and edit_section.

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 'full Markdown article' implies this is the retrieval step after finding a slug, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over search_topics or discover_topics, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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