fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: hash validation, page provenance, pagination, access restrictions, and a caution about inferring ownership.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds operational guidance or a constraint, and none is redundant.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, it covers the essential preconditions, pagination, access constraints, and provenance checks. Some ambiguity remains around what 'parent section' means and how hash validation and page provenance manifest in the returned content.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It constrains id to search results and hints at offset behavior through next_offset, but it does not directly define the offset parameter's meaning or reconcile 'next_offset' with the schema's 'offset' field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the original parent section for a search result ID,' and adds hash validation/page provenance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as source_page, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly requires IDs to come from search, forbids arbitrary file access, and explains pagination via next_offset. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison with sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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