fetch_accessibility_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action is to 'fetch' (implying read-only) and that it returns 'full markdown documentation' (implying no truncation). However, it does not disclose details about error behavior, response structure, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise, avoid redundancy, and provides both the action and a key usage hint in a compact format.

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 3 params (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the essential context: the source repository, the need for a path from search, and the nature of the return (full markdown). It does not explicitly describe the response envelope, but this is acceptable for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 well-described parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the 'path' should come from search results and that the content is 'full markdown documentation,' which contextualizes the parameters without repeating schema details.

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 fetches the complete content of a specific accessibility article from a named repository. It uses specific verb+resource ('Fetch...article') and implies a distinction from siblings by focusing on retrieving full markdown documentation for an already-known path, rather than searching or listing.

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 provides clear usage context by instructing to use the path from search results, which implies a workflow via search_accessibility_articles. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the reference to search results gives a practical prerequisite and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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