fetch_ufixit_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. The description adds that it fetches a report from a course page, implying potential network access and page content retrieval, but does not contradict the annotation. It adds some value beyond the annotation.

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 one sentence long, directly states the purpose, and contains no redundancy. It is optimally concise and 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?

The tool has a simple purpose, 2 params with full schema coverage, readOnly annotation, and no output schema. The description is adequate for the level of complexity, though it could mention what the report contains, but that is not essential given the clarity of the name and the presence of related tools for parsing.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear definitions including default for page_title. A score of 4 is given because the tool has only 2 params and the description aligns with the rich schema, but no extra value is added by the description itself.

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 'UFIXIT accessibility report' from 'Canvas course pages', clearly distinguishing the tool's core function. It is not a tautology and implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly compare to siblings like parse_ufixit_violations or scan_course_content_accessibility, which may share the UFIXIT domain.

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 implies usage for retrieving a report given a course identifier, but it does not specify when to prefer this tool over similar ones, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is minimal.

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