fetch

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'fetch', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether the returned 'full prediction document' is large, whether there are any side effects, or any other behavioral characteristics. Given the tool retrieves a 'full document', some clarification of response size or content would be expected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out what the 'full prediction document' actually contains and when this tool should be chosen over its many siblings. It also doesn't clarify whether the tool is read-only. The low complexity of the tool is acknowledged, but the missing usage context and output expectations make it incomplete for an agent.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'id' with a type, description, and example ('pred:123'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, this is at the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'full prediction document', and qualifies it with the condition 'for a search result id'. This makes the purpose specific and distinguishable from broader tools like get_predictions or get_track_record. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top tier.

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 implies usage after a search because it requires a 'search result id', but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_track_record or get_predictions. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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