fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (dictionary with id, title, text containing BibTeX and abstract) and notes it expects a single ID parameter. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found), rate limits, or permissions. For a read-only fetch, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with the main purpose stated first, followed by a brief note on compatibility, and then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the compatibility note could be seen as extra context rather than essential usage guidance.

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 simple fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what the parameter means, and what it returns. It lacks error handling details, but for a basic fetch operation, this is reasonably complete.

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 only defines 'id' as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'Document ID from previous search results', which tells the agent exactly where the ID comes from and its format expectation.

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 'Fetch a single document by ID' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_reference and search (which search) and fetch_multiple (which fetches multiple), by emphasizing 'single document'.

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 usage context by noting this is for ChatGPT compatibility and that the ID comes from previous search results, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like fetch_multiple, though the sibling names and the 'single' wording make the distinction clear.

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