Avo Cado Read

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 does disclose one key behavioral trait ('Free' — no cost/auth implied) and that the content covers price, network and payment mechanics, but it doesn't say whether the call is static/local, whether it requires auth, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the most decision-relevant fact ('Free') front-loaded. Slightly terse phrasing ('Free' of what, exactly) leaves a small ambiguity, but the structure is efficient.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description adequately covers what the response will explain (price, network, payment via x402 for read_url). Only a note on response shape or the x402 concept itself would make it fully self-contained.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, informational call.

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?

Names the resource (price, network, payment method for read_url via x402) with a concrete verb ('Explains'), so an agent knows this is an informational tool rather than a data-access tool. It ties itself to the sibling read_url, but doesn't clearly state it is the only sibling relationship or that it is purely static documentation.

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?

Implied usage: check this when you need to know the cost or how to pay for read_url. The leading 'Free' hints there is no barrier to calling it, but there is no explicit 'call this before read_url' or 'call this when you receive a 402/402-payment challenge' routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the robots.txt behavior, the x402 payment model ($0.003 USDC on Base), and the no-charge-on-failure guarantee — all material facts beyond the schema. It omits rate limits, timeouts, and error/precondition behavior for non-public URLs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return payload, followed by the two operational caveats (robots.txt, cost). No filler or restated title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers what the agent needs: return contents, robots.txt constraint, and cost semantics including the failed-read exception. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and rate/throughput behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is already documented as a public http(s) URI. The description reinforces the public-http(s) constraint but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 ('Fetch a public http(s) web page') and enumerates exactly what is returned ('title, main content as clean Markdown, and links'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the only sibling, pricing, which is about cost lookup rather than retrieval.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the URL must be a public http(s) page and robots.txt is honored, which implicitly excludes private/authenticated and robots-disallowed pages. It does not name alternatives or enumerate when-not cases (e.g., JS-heavy pages, PDFs, paywalled content), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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