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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('fetch', 'retrieves') and specifies the return format, but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples), front-loaded with the core functionality, and every sentence earns its place. The example usage section provides concrete value without being verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it could benefit from mentioning error cases or limitations. The output schema existence reduces the need to fully document returns, but some behavioral context is still 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains the 'id' parameter's purpose, format requirements with specific examples ('type:id'), and multiple concrete usage examples showing different record types. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verb ('fetch', 'retrieves') and resource ('complete record data by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like search tools or creation/update tools. It explicitly mentions fetching by ID rather than other filtering methods.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('by ID' for 'specific record'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies this is for fetching individual records rather than lists or searches, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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