Ragfeed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: "Free of charge," which tells an agent that a credit-metered service does not deduct credits for this call. It stops short of stating auth requirements.

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, front-loaded with the actionable content and ending with the cost reassurance. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, and the description names the three fields of interest. For a zero-param read-only tool that is nearly complete; only the absence of any auth or freshness/caching note keeps it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly describes the no-argument operation as a pure account summary, and there are no parameters needing explanation.

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 ("Show") and precise resource set (plan, remaining credits, renewal date), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. Siblings are all scraping/crawl/monitor tools in a different domain, so the tool is distinguishable, though the description never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call for account/credit state, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives. For a zero-parameter informational tool this is adequate but not instructive.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: a cost of 1 credit per page and the shape of the produced chunks (stable UUID, embeddable text, flat metadata). It stops short of covering failure modes or credit-refund behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action and output come first, the cost note is last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the credit cost and chunk contents that structured fields cannot. The only gap is error/limit behavior for a 7-parameter tool with paging and token-cap interactions.

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%, including defaults, ranges and enum meanings for profile and embedding_model, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description restates output metadata fields but adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how max_tokens overrides profile, or how offset interacts with max_chunks).

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 concrete verb and resource ('Fetch one page and split it along its headings into chunks') plus the destination use case (vector database), which is more specific than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like ragfeed_extract or ragfeed_scrape, which also fetch a single page, so the agent must infer the difference from the schema.

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?

'Fetch one page' implies the single-page scope versus ragfeed_crawl, and the chunk-oriented output implies a vector-DB ingestion use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative; the routing guidance is only implied.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the wait-then-background execution model and a per-page credit cost. That cost and async behavior are operationally important and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then execution semantics, then cost. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still characterizes the output as compact markdown. Combined with the async hand-off to ragfeed_crawl_status and the credit cost, it is nearly complete, though the single-page vs. crawl choice is still unaddressed.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates wait_seconds and adds the consequence that larger crawls continue in the background, but adds no new guidance on limit, max_depth, or the include/exclude filter syntax.

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 with scope: fetch several pages of one website by following links, returning compact markdown. That implicitly separates it from single-page siblings like ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_extract, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 points to ragfeed_crawl_status for crawls that outlive the wait window, which is useful routing. However it never states when to prefer this over ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_map, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'Free of charge' — but says nothing about polling cadence, when a crawl is considered finished, or any rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the cost note second. Nothing is wasted, though the billing aside is the only part not strictly about the operation itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description correctly conveys the continuation model; the only gap is that it doesn't indicate how an agent learns a crawl has finished, which is relevant for a status tool.

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%, so id, offset and max_chars_per_page are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing further about parameter usage beyond the general notion of retrieving 'further pages'.

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 resource (status and further pages of a crawl) and anchors it to its sibling by naming 'a crawl started with ragfeed_crawl', which cleanly separates it from ragfeed_crawl itself. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('Status and further pages'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'started with ragfeed_crawl' establishes the precondition for use, and 'further pages' signals the pagination/continuation case. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative for monitoring an in-flight crawl.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations: an exact credit cost model (6 credits base, +5 per further 2000 tokens). It does not state rate limits, auth needs, or timeout/truncation behavior, but cost disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the cost detail in parentheses. Two sentences with essentially no filler, and the pricing parentheses are dense but information-bearing. Slightly long on the cost parenthetical relative to the operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Combined with the annotations, the definition covers what the tool does, the inputs, and the cost model. It leaves out any notion of page/input limits or failure behavior, which for an openWorld fetch+AI tool would be a nice addition.

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%, so all three parameters (url, prompt, schema) are documented in the schema itself. The description echoes that the schema parameter is optional and that a prompt guides extraction, but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 (extract) and resource (structured data as JSON) and clarifies the mechanism (prompt + optional JSON Schema) which meaningfully separates it from a raw-content scrape. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary with ragfeed_scrape/ragfeed_crawl on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by 'guided by a prompt and optionally a JSON Schema' — the agent can infer this is for targeted structured extraction rather than bulk fetching. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative statement, no exclusions, and no routing against the many sibling tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 1-credit cost and the fact that no content is fetched. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and boundary, followed by the filter and the cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, filtering, and cost. The only mild gap is the absence of any hint about result size/pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, which is minor for a read-only listing tool.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema (url, limit with default/max/min, search term). The description restates the optional search filter but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 ('List') and resource ('page URLs of a website') with an explicit source ('sitemap and links') and an explicit scope boundary ('without fetching their content'). This clearly separates it from content-fetching siblings like ragfeed_scrape and ragfeed_crawl.

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 phrase 'without fetching their content' implies the enumerate-then-fetch workflow and hints at what the tool is not, and the optional search filter is noted. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer it.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: results arrive in parts and you must re-call with the offset the answer names, and the operation is free of charge (no credit consumption). It does not describe ordering guarantees beyond 'newest first' for the list mode.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the mode distinction and followed by pagination and cost notes; no filler. Density is high but every clause carries information an agent needs, with only a mild readability cost from packing both modes into one sentence.

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 read-only, paginated, dual-mode tool with a 6-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers mode selection, pagination mechanics and cost. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema; only minor gaps remain, such as what a 'check' contains at the list level.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: check_id acts as a mode switch that changes the entire response shape, page_status is what selects the other page categories, and the offset is meant to be taken from the previous answer rather than guessed. That is more than restating the schema.

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+resource and cleanly splits the tool into two modes keyed on check_id: without it, the monitor's recent checks with counts and credits; with it, changed/new/removed/error pages plus KI-Bewertung reasons and diff excerpts. An agent can distinguish this from ragfeed_monitor_get, ragfeed_monitor_run and ragfeed_monitor_list without opening a schema.

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 explicit mode-selection guidance: omit check_id to survey recent checks, pass check_id to drill into a single check's pages, and notes page_status selects other page categories. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. ragfeed_monitor_get) or stating when-not to call it, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the monitor persists and consumes credits after the conversation ends until paused/deleted, pricing per page/search result/goal judgement, and that the first check stores current state while later checks report differences. It omits rate limits, permission requirements, and what the creation response contains, but the additions are real.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the creation prerequisite and then the credit model. It is long and the pricing rules are packed into one dense sentence with several numeric clauses, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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 20-parameter creation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the mandatory estimate-then-confirm workflow, post-conversation persistence and credit consumption, cost semantics, and first-check baseline behavior. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying parameters to a cost model (1 credit per page read, 2 credits per 10 search results, 2 credits per judged page/result with a goal) and by explaining that goal switches on the KI-Bewertung, which helps the agent reason about goal/judge_enabled/crawl_limit/max_results together.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb (Create), resource (a monitor in the user's Ragfeed account), and scope (single pages, whole website, or web search on a schedule, reporting new/changed/removed by e-mail and optionally webhook). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ragfeed_monitor_update, ragfeed_monitor_estimate, and ragfeed_monitor_run.

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 states an explicit prerequisite workflow: call ragfeed_monitor_estimate with the same arguments first, show the user credits per check and per month, and only create after the user's explicit OK. It also names the alternative at the right moment, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the cascade scope (checks, results, stored page versions are destroyed) and irreversibility, plus a mandatory user-confirmation workflow. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. deleting a currently running monitor) or errors, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and irreversibility, followed by the confirmation requirement and the alternative tool. No filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description supplies what annotations and schema cannot: cascade scope, irreversibility, and the required confirmation step. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating where the id comes from (ragfeed_monitor_list or ragfeed_monitor_create). The description adds nothing further about the id, so the baseline 3 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 (delete) and resource (monitor) plus the cascade scope: all checks, results and stored page versions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the narrower stop-only operation by naming ragfeed_monitor_update as the sibling for pausing.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule ('ask the user to confirm first') and an explicit when-not-to/alternative ('to stop it only for a while, pause it with ragfeed_monitor_update instead'). The agent can route correctly without opening any other schema.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds that the monitor is not created, that figures are 30-day estimates, and the full credit-cost model including the free unreadable-page case.

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?

Effectively front-loaded, leading with the tool's purpose and the create-companion instruction, then the cost rules; it is dense but every clause carries pricing or sequencing information, with only mild overlap against the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still enumerates the returned figures and the plan limits; combined with usage sequencing and the cost model, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by linking cost drivers to specific parameters (per-page reads for urls/crawl, per started 10 results for queries, goal-triggered KI-Bewertung judging), and surfaces the plan's shortest-interval limit that schedule depends on.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource combo ('Work out what a planned monitor would cost, without creating it') and immediately distinguishes itself from the create path, so an agent can separate it from ragfeed_monitor_create without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this before ragfeed_monitor_create with the same arguments and show the user the figures,' naming the alternative tool and the exact sequencing condition, and adds that the call is free of charge.

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?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the Beta status and the explicit "Free of charge" cost disclosure, which matters for a metered API. It does not, however, mention authorization or rate-limit behavior.

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 Beta caveat and the scope, followed by a compact enumeration of returned data. Every element earns its place, though the field list is dense and the untranslated "KI-Bewertung" costs some readability.

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 read-only annotations, a full output schema, and a single required parameter, the burden on the description is low, and it still covers the Beta limitation and the free-of-charge cost. For a simple getter this is essentially complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the id and even points to ragfeed_monitor_list and ragfeed_monitor_create as sources. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("Show one monitor") and enumerates exactly what is returned: schedule, next/last check, goal, recipients, webhook, credits per check, latest checks. It implicitly separates itself from the list/checks siblings by the singular scope, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The mixed-language term "KI-Bewertung" slightly muddies an otherwise precise purpose statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative selection guidance; the agent must infer that this is the single-monitor counterpart to ragfeed_monitor_list and ragfeed_monitor_checks. The closing "Free of charge" is a useful usage signal because sibling tools like ragfeed_monitor_estimate and ragfeed_monitor_run likely consume credits, but this is only an implied rule.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot express: the call is 'Free of charge' (no credit consumption) and it is a Beta endpoint. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence: purpose first, returned fields next, then the cost note. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values (though it enumerates them anyway), and annotations cover the safety profile. What an agent still lacks is explicit routing guidance versus sibling monitor tools, which is minor for a simple list call with zero required parameters.

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% (both limit and offset are documented, including the newest-first ordering), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (the account's monitors) plus the exact fields returned (id, name, status, schedule, checks, pages, credits). This clearly separates it from monitor_get or monitor_checks, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool for monitors, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over monitor_get or monitor_checks, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('costs the same credits as a scheduled check'), the bounded wait window, the background-continuation behavior for larger checks, and the categories of result ('changed, new, removed and error pages'). It does not mention auth requirements or repeat-invocation cost behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action, cost, and follow-up front-loaded; nothing is filler. Minor redundancy: the '(Beta)' marker duplicates the title and the inline result-category list is slightly clunky.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers cost, wait semantics, background behavior and the follow-up call — everything needed to invoke and continue correctly. It omits any note about permission/auth needs or what happens on repeated invocation, a modest gap against the non-idempotent annotation.

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%, so the schema already documents id, wait_seconds and max_chars_per_page. The description echoes wait_seconds' semantics ('continues after that') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('start a check'), the resource (monitor), and the distinguishing scope ('now, outside its schedule'). An agent can separate this from the scheduled-check behavior and from sibling ragfeed_monitor_checks without opening either schema.

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 an explicit condition for use (outside the schedule) and an explicit routing rule for the alternative path: 'Larger checks continue in the background: then call ragfeed_monitor_checks with the check id.' Names the follow-up tool and the situation that selects it.

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?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot convey: which stored data is deleted (page/website stored versions), that cost-raising edits are previewed via new credits per check and per month, that an empty list or text removes that target, and that new webhook/e-mail targets redirect results. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense clauses about replacement, removal, and confirmation are all load-bearing. It is long but not padded; the run-on sentence structure makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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 22-parameter, destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema already present, the description covers the gaps that matter: merge/removal semantics, cost preview, irrecoverable deletions, and redirected results. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious merge semantics absent from the schema: 'urls replaces the single pages, crawl_url the website, queries the search', and that an empty list/text or empty goal removes that part (including the KI-Bewertung). That replace-vs-remove behavior is genuinely load-bearing for a 22-parameter patch tool.

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 the specific operations (change settings, pause, resume) on a specific resource (monitor), and the parenthetical '(Beta)' plus 'Only the given settings change' immediately distinguishes it from ragfeed_monitor_create and ragfeed_monitor_delete. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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 explicit conditionality that other tools lack: pause semantics ('no checks, no credits'), the rule that 'only the given settings change', and three named cases requiring user confirmation (cost-raising changes, removing pages/website, new webhook or e-mail recipients). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for related tasks (create/get/delete), so it is not a full 5.

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?

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the credit cost model, including the surcharge for summaries/questions and further surcharges for very long answers. It still does not cover latency or failure behavior for unreachable pages.

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 core action and output format, followed by the optional capabilities and the cost model. The cost sentence is dense but every clause carries operative information; nothing here is filler.

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 rich annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply the additional context the structured data cannot carry, and it does so via the credit-cost disclosure. Pagination mechanics (offset/max_chars) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly reduces completeness for a 9-parameter tool.

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%, so every parameter (fresh, format, mobile, offset, question, max_chars, wait_for_ms, only_main_content) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of question/summary adds only a light reinforcement of what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one web page or document and return its main content as compact markdown') and scopes it to a single page, which distinguishes it from multi-page siblings like ragfeed_crawl and from ragfeed_extract/ragfeed_map. The parenthetical about boilerplate removal further pins down what 'content' means.

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 via 'Optionally answer a question about the page or summarize it', which maps to the question/format=summary options, but it never says when to prefer this over ragfeed_crawl, ragfeed_extract, or ragfeed_map. No explicit when-not or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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?

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a concrete pricing model (2 credits per started 10 results, +1 per page when content is included) and clarifies that fetched content is compact markdown, which materially affects invocation decisions.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the cost implication. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add what structured fields cannot: the cost model and the optional content behavior. It does both, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying cost to the result count ('per started 10 results') and by specifying the output format of the content parameter ('compact markdown'), which the schema does not state.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the web or news') and even states the return shape ('titles, URLs and descriptions'), which is well beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from crawling/scraping siblings like ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_crawl, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the source modes and the cost model hint at when to include content, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., versus ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_extract) and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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