corp__read_public_post

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, and it does so exceptionally well. It reveals that content is untrusted and capable of carrying prompt-injection-style instructions, and it discloses the side effect that reading triggers Aggrete's refusal of later data-sending tools (COC-SEC-002). This is critical behavioral information beyond the schema.

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: it opens with the untrusted-web marker and the core action, then delivers the essential security caveat. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly: what it fetches, that the content is untrusted, and the consequential session-level egress restriction. This is complete for an agent to understand both the action and its implications.

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 100% and the single 'url' parameter is already well described as 'URL of the public page or post to read.' The description adds context that the tool fetches text and that content is untrusted, but it does not need to add much parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('text of a public web page or forum post'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The '[untrusted-web]' prefix and the security caveat further distinguish it from the unrelated HR, finance, and operations siblings.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for reading public web content and provides important context about untrusted content and the session-level data egress restriction. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list contains no other web-fetch tool, so the context is sufficient 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.