Context Relay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only adds the 'without retrieving the page' behavior, which is useful. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or how freshness_seconds affects results. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but remains limited.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core function and key differentiator. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what a 'quote' consists of, how the output is structured, or how parameters influence results. It only addresses the 'without retrieving' aspect, leaving major gaps for an agent deciding on invocation.

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 only 40% (only url and question have descriptions). The description does not explain the meaning of max_tokens, max_price_usd, or freshness_seconds, nor does it relate these to the quoted 'price, route, latency, policy'. This leaves 60% of parameters effectively undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states the tool provides a price, route, latency, and policy quote without retrieving the page. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'retrieve_context', which presumably retrieves the full page content. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'quote' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 retrieving the page' implies this tool is for lightweight information needs, contrasting with a full retrieval tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over 'retrieve_context', leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the cost aspect ($0.005 USDC via x402) and the 'citation-verifiable' output quality, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits or failure handling.

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 two short sentences and gets straight to the point, with no fluff. Every word adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, what the output structure looks like, or how pricing works relative to max_price_usd. The sibling tool is not mentioned, limiting contextual understanding.

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 only 40%; only 'url' and 'question' have descriptions. The description does not explain the remaining three parameters (max_tokens, max_price_usd, freshness_seconds). Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states the function: 'Retrieve compact, citation-verifiable context from public HTML.' It specifies a verb, resource, and output characteristics. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'quote_context', so it misses the chance to clarify when to choose this over the alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'quote_context'. The description only states the action and cost, without any context on use cases or exclusions.

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