fetch

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: the exact return shape and the important fact that text contains the record serialized as JSON. This gives the agent expectations for the response even without an output schema.

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 tight sentences deliver resource scope, id formats, invocation source, and return contract with no filler. The most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with one required parameter, the description covers id formats, invocation alternatives, and the return contract, compensating for the missing output schema. The optional organizationId is adequately documented in the input schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by spelling out the composite id encodings (project:<id>, board:<projectId>:<boardId>, item:<projectId>:<boardId>:<itemId>) and the app URL-path alternative, which is more specific than the schema's description.

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 states a specific action (fetch) acting on a specific resource (one project, board, or item) and gives exact id formats and URL-path alternatives. This clearly distinguishes it from listing, searching, and mutating siblings.

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 says the id comes from a previous search and that app URL paths are also accepted, giving the agent concrete when-to-call context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for selecting this tool over search/list siblings.

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