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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important cost and payment information (0.01 USDC on Base via x402, 12 sats Cashu ecash, or 12 sats over Lightning), which is valuable context. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or whether payment is required on every call.

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 uses two efficiently structured sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second provides payment details. Every sentence earns its place, though the payment sentence is dense with three separate rails.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, and cost. It still leaves out parameter specifics, usage guidance, and payment mechanics, which are important for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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% for the single 'url' parameter. The description implies a web page URL but gives no format, constraints, or examples to compensate for the missing schema documentation. An agent must infer the parameter's role entirely from the parameter name.

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 and resource: 'Return the main readable article text of a web page as paragraphs.' This clearly conveys what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'readability' or 'extract_page', which likely have overlapping purposes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'readability' or 'extract_page'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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