fetch_doc_content

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 describes the core functionality (fetching and exploring links) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (e.g., format, size limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external web resources.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and key feature (exploring linked pages). It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of fetching web content with link exploration, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format, which are critical for effective tool use in this context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'depth') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds minimal value by implying the depth parameter relates to link exploration, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('web page content'), and it adds valuable context about exploring linked pages. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, which keeps it from reaching a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions the ability to explore linked pages up to a specified depth, but this is more about functionality than usage context.

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