fetch_page_text

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses best-effort date parsing, includes text_truncated and retrieved_at in the return shape, and implies truncation behavior. It does not address failures or access restrictions, but that is a minor gap for a read-only fetch tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The usage list and return shape are both relevant and contain no fluff.

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 description covers purpose, use cases, and the return contract explicitly, which is valuable since no output schema exists. However, it lacks detail about the max_chars parameter and does not explicitly guide when not to use the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It never explains the url or max_chars parameters; url is inferable from context, but max_chars semantics and its relationship to text_truncated remain undocumented. This is a clear gap.

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 and resource: fetching policy/regulation pages and extracting main text plus publish date. It also lists concrete use cases, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling search, verification, and catalog tools.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: reading full content of retrieved pages, checking clause context, and extracting issuing organ/date. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the context provided is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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